Comparison of complications rates in endoscopic surgery performed by a clinical assistant vs. An experienced endoscopic surgeon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: (a) To find out the actual incidence of complications during endoscopic surgeries. (b) Comparison of complication rate between an experienced laparoscopic surgeon (> 10 years of experience in endoscopic surgery) and a clinical assistant (> 3 years of experience in endoscopic surgery). (c) How to manage complications in endoscopic surgery. (d) Concrete suggestions to reduce the complication rate. DESIGN: Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification ii-2). SETTING: Tertiary gynecologic endoscopic unit. PATIENTS: A total of 3204 cases of gynecologic endoscopic surgery out of which 2001 were laparoscopic and 1203 were hysteroscopic surgeries. INTERVENTIONS: Laparoscopic and hysteroscopic gynecologic surgeries in indicated cases. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study was carried out between April 2003 and October 2007 at a referral center for endoscopic surgery. A total of 3204 cases of gynecologic endoscopic surgery were studied. There were five significant complications in laparoscopic surgeries and four significant complications in hysteroscopic surgeries seen in four years and six months. All the complications could be managed with no mortality. Conversion to laparotomy was needed in eight cases of laparoscopic surgeries and none in hysteroscopic surgeries. CONCLUSION: The risk of complication reduces with the experience in endoscopic surgery. However, the proper grooming of a novice in experienced hands, for a sufficient period of time, can minimize the complication rate in the initial learning phase. The complication may be utilized as a stepping-stone to overcome any given situation without panic, but with adequate safety.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".