Comparison of Laparoscopic Anterior Discoid Resection and Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection of Deep Infiltrating Rectosigmoid Endometriosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare laparoscopic anterior discoid resection (ADR) with low anterior resection (LAR). METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a cohort (Canadian Task Force classification II-2) of patients undergoing laparoscopic ADR or LAR at a university hospital. Chart review and telephone questionnaires were conducted to examine long-term outcomes. Preoperative and operative findings, short- and long-term outcomes were compared. SF-12 quality of life scores, need for further interventions, and overall satisfaction were also compared. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent laparoscopic ADR (n 8) or LAR (n 14) for rectosigmoid endometriosis between January 2001 and December 2009. Mean follow-up time was 41.26 months (range, 14 to 70). Patients undergoing laparoscopic ADR had significantly less blood loss and shorter operative time and hospital stay. Patients who required LAR had a significantly higher rate of mucosal involvement (61.5% v. 0%). No statistically significant difference was found in the size, depth of invasion, location of lesions, or operative complications. Fifty percent of the LAR group had several lesions as opposed to 12.5% of the ADR group. Median age was significantly higher in patients who required LAR (39) than in patients who required ADR (32). Three patients in the LAR group (21.4%) had anastomotic strictures; 2 required dilation. The ADR group had consistently higher increments of improvement in bowel symptoms and dyspareunia. Overall satisfaction rate with the procedures was 93.3%. SF-12 scores were comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: ADR compared with LAR is associated with decreased operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay and a lower rate of anastomotic strictures. Other outcomes and satisfaction rates are comparable between the 2 procedures.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".