Laparoscopic Total Colectomy: An Evolutionary Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy and total proctocolectomy are technically challenging operations. Advances in minimally invasive techniques, including sleeveless hand-assist devices, may influence performance of these procedures. This study was designed to evaluate the results of laparoscopic total colectomy and to compare the hand-assisted approach with straight laparoscopy. METHODS: Sequential patients undergoing hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic total abdominal colectomy and total proctocolectomy from 1997 to 2004 were identified from a single institution prospective database involving four colorectal surgeons, of which three had limited laparoscopic experience. Patient characteristics, perioperative parameters, and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were analyzed. Sixty-nine patients underwent total abdominal colectomy (hand-assisted 17 vs. straight laparoscopic 52), and 61 underwent total proctocolectomy (hand-assisted 28 vs. straight laparoscopic 33). For both total abdominal colectomy and total proctocolectomy, the hand-assisted and straight laparoscopic groups were well matched. Although no differences were observed in operative blood loss and intraoperative complications, hand assistance resulted in fewer overall conversions to open (1/45 (2.2 percent) vs. 6/85 (7.1 percent); P < 0.01), with no conversions in the total abdominal colectomy group (0 vs. 9.6 percent; P = 0.05). There was a trend toward reduced operative time with hand assistance, and nonlaparoscopic staff surgeons performed a greater proportion of the hand-assisted cases (22.2 vs. 10.6 percent; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic total colectomy is technically feasible and safe. With a significant reduction in conversions and a greater proportion of cases performed by nonlaparoscopic surgeons, there was an evolutionary shift to a hand-assisted technique. A hand-assisted approach may be a useful alternative to a straight laparoscopic approach for this technically challenging operation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".