Treatment of myomas by laparoscopic and laparotomic myomectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the benefits, feasibility and limitations of laparoscopic myomectomy. It was a retrospective review (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2) at a university-based primary treatment centre for endoscopic surgery. The 216 evaluated patients were treated at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Kiel, between January 1998 and November 2000. Of 216 patients with myomas, 178 (83%) underwent laparoscopic myomectomy, 27 (12%) laparoscopic hysterectomy and 11 (5%) laparotomic myomectomy. The study reviewed the indications and surgical techniques and evaluated the benefits and limitations of laparoscopic myomectomy. Nine patients were selected for Classic Intrafascial Supracervical Hysterectomy (CISH) and 18 for Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVH), i.e. 12% of the patients were selected for laparoscopic hysterectomy. In an additional 11 (5%) patients the laparoscopic approach was difficult because of the location of the myoma and the procedure converted to a laparotomic myomectomy. A total of 178 patients (83%) was treated by laparoscopic myomectomy. The mean hospital stay was three days. No serious complications occurred. Two patients suffered a uterine wound bleeding which was corrected and one patient an abdominal hematoma. Since this study mainly focuses on laparoscopic myomectomies (83%), hysteroscopic myomectomies were evaluated in a separate study. At our institution laparoscopic myomectomy is the first-step treatment for patients with myomatous uteri. Only a small percentage of patients had to undergo a laparotomy (5%) and for 27 patients (12%) hysterectomy proved to be the treatment of choice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".