Laparoscopic Hysterectomies: Our 10 Years Experience in a Single Laparoscopic Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between outcomes of laparoscopic hysterectomy with respect to clinical factors, intraoperative variants, and post-operative complications. DESIGN: The study conducted was retrospective (Canadian Task Force Classification II-1). SETTING: The set used in this study was a gynecological laparoscopic centre. PATIENTS: The present study included 858 women who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomies with or without bilateral/unilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, from December 2004 to May 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Eight hundred and sixteen patients underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy, 14 patients underwent subtotal laparoscopic hysterectomy, 20 patients underwent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and 8 patients underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon, using the same surgical technique. The medical records were reviewed, and data were collected with respect to age, indications, type of surgery performed, intraoperative variants, and post-operative complications. Patient average age was 44.9 ± 6.2 years. Most common indication for benign TLH was leiomyoma of 54.4 %. Indications for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy were early stage endometrial cancer (n = 5) and early stage cervical cancer (n = 3). The maximum uterine size operated on was from 20-26 weeks, 4.9 % (n = 42). 9.7 % had previous abdominopelvic surgery. Fifty three % underwent unilateral/bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Conversion rate was 0.93 % (n = 8). The minimum and maximum operating time during the total study period was 20 min-2 h. The major complication rates were 0.9 % (n = 8). The hospital stay was not more than 2 days. CONCLUSION: In our experience of 858 laparoscopic hysterectomies, 850 were done for benign indications, and 8 done for malignancies. TLH can be performed more safely and under vision, with less blood loss, early post-operative recovery, less post-operative infection, and less complication rate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".