Feasibility and safety of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) using the Hohl instrument in nonobese and obese women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and complication rates of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) using the Hohl instrument in nonobese and obese women. METHODS: A prospective controlled trail (Canadian Task Force classification II-1) was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. Two hundred and fifty-seven women underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy using the Hohl instrument between January 2006 and May 2008. The laparoscopic approach was used when the patient had undergone previous pelvic abdominal operation and/or had a reduced vaginal capacity. Women were classified according to their body mass index (BMI), with a cutoff point of 30 kg/m(2). Total laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed using the Hohl instrument. RESULTS: One ureteral injury, one bladder injury, one vaginal injury, and one injury to the epigastric vessels occurred. Blood transfusion was necessary in one patient. One conversion to abdominal hysterectomy was performed in a woman with a uterus weighing 893 g. In the postoperative phase, suture dehiscence at the vaginal closure occurred in three patients, one patient had bladder infection, one woman developed unexplained fever, and a hematoma without infection at the vaginal vault occurred in one woman. All complications occurred in women with BMI < 30 kg/m(2). CONCLUSION: TLH using the Hohl instrument is feasible and safe in nonobese and obese patients.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".