Adhesion formation after peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy in a survival porcine model: comparison of laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Minimizing the invasiveness of operations by using natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) may reduce adhesion formation. The aim of the study was to compare rates of adhesion formation after peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy by laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric NOTES. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experimental comparative survival study, at a university hospital. using 18 female pigs weighing 35 - 40 kg. Peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy was randomized to one of three groups: laparotomy, laparoscopy, and transgastric NOTES. Preoperative, operative, and postoperative care was standardized. Main outcome measures were: (i) survival and complication rates; (ii) assessment of adhesion formation using the Hopkins Adhesion Formation Score at necropsy (day 14). RESULTS: 100 % of pigs with laparotomy and 33.3 % with laparoscopy had adhesions compared with 16.7 % who underwent transgastric NOTES. Documented adhesion bands totals for each group were: transgastric NOTES 1; laparoscopy 4; laparotomy 17. Median adhesion formation scores were: laparotomy 2.5 (range 2 - 4), compared with laparoscopy 0.0 (0 - 2), and transgastric NOTES 0.0 (0 - 1) ( P < 0.001). Spearman coefficient analysis revealed that correlation between adhesion scores assigned by two investigators was excellent (r = 0.99, P < 0.001, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.9978 - 0.9996). CONCLUSIONS: Although this was a short-term study, with a low number of animals, it showed that transgastric NOTES and laparoscopy are associated with statistically significantly lower rates of adhesion formation than open surgery when peritoneoscopy with liver biopsy is performed. Incidence and severity of adhesions were lowest with transgastric NOTES.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".