Laparoscopic Appendectomy Using the LigaSure <sup>®</sup> Vessel Sealing Device at the Time of Gynecologic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Despite its many reported advantages, laparoscopic appendectomy has not gained widespread acceptance, perhaps because of prolonged operative time and technical complexity, compared to the open procedure. The objective of this report was to describe the authors experience with using the LigaSure® device for the performance of an appendectomy during laparocopic surgery for gynecologic malignancies. This is the first description in the literature reporting the use of a sealing device across the appendiceal base without a loop or ligature. Design and Methods: All laparoscopic surgeries for gynecologic malignancy since 2004 at the author's center have been prospectively recorded. For appendectomies, the 5-mm LigaSure® was used to divide the mesoappendix and separate the appendix from the cecum. Surgical information, including the duration of surgery, blood loss, and complications, as well as the patients' medical and demographic information, were reviewed and analyzed. Results: Fourteen cases of laparoscopic appendectomy using the LigaSure® vessel sealing device were prospectively collected between 2004 and 2009. The patients' median age was 34 and their median body mass index was 25. The median total operative time was 1.5 hours, and the duration of appendectomy was approximately 5 minutes in each case. Median estimated blood loss was 50 mL per procedure. There were no conversions to laparotomy and no major intraoperative or postoperative complications. Conclusions: Performance of an appendectomy using the LigaSure vessel sealing device to divide both the mesoappendix and the appendiceal base is feasible and appears to be safe for surgery for gynecological malignancy. The applicability of this technique to other surgical settings, including acute appendicitis, needs further investigation. (J GYNECOL SURG 28:188)
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".