Does the Use of Newer Technology to Divide the Mesoappendix Result in Less Bleeding? A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Various methods have been used to seal and divide the mesoappendix, such as endoscopic linear cutting staples, the Harmonic Scalpel and even monopolar coagulation. The goal of this study was to determine whether using any of these energy sources versus any non-energy source would be superior in terms of post-operative complications (primarily bleeding), hospital length of stay and cost. Methods: This study included all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis between January 2007 and April 2010 at a community hospital system with two large hospitals. The primary outcomes measured were bleeding, post-operative anemia, blood transfusion requirements, length of stay and cost. Results: Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed on 838 patients. An energy source was used on 503 patients and a non-energy source was used on 335 patients. No statistically significant differences were found regarding post-operative complications or length of stay. There was, however, a financial difference found, in that it was much less expensive to use a non-energy source versus an energy source when handling and controlling the mesoappendix. Conclusions: Using a non-energy source is as safe as an energy source for dividing and sealing of the mesoappendix. This study supports the use of a non-energy source as a comparable method when compared to a non-energy source, with no difference in main outcomes. J Curr Surg. 2014;4(1):6-9 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jcs198w
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".