Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis for Chronic Abdominal Pain: An Objective Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postoperative adhesions frequently occur and can account for various symptoms, including chronic abdominal pain. Conventional adhesiolysis by laparotomy results in an unacceptably high rate of recurrence. A minimally invasive procedure (laparoscopic adhesiolysis) might improve the outcome by inflicting less surgical trauma, but well-documented reports focused on laparoscopic adhesiolysis for chronic abdominal pain are lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twelve consecutive patients with chronic abdominal pain caused by adhesions who were treated by laparoscopic adhesiolysis were assessed preoperatively and during a 1-year follow-up period applying validated scoring systems: McGill and SLC-90 tests to evaluate personalities and MOS SF-36 and GIQLI questionnaires for the quality of life assessments. RESULTS: No psychological influences were identified. Only two patients experienced a lasting improvement in quality of life, and five patients had more or less stable complaints. Five patients required laparotomy within a year after laparoscopic adhesiolysis. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis has yet not passed the stage of clinical trial and requires objective evaluation, including detailed information on recurrence and de novo adhesions in correlation with clinical outcome.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".