Single Port Access (SPA) Laparoscopy Versus Conventional Laparoscopy in Management of Presumptive Benign Ovarian Tumor: A Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objective: The objective of the study was to compare perioperative outcomes including operation time, length of hospital stay, bleeding during operation and post operaion pain in oophorectomy or cystectomy by single port access (SPA) laparoscopic surgery or by conventional laparoscopy. Design: A retrospective case control study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: University hospital, research hospital and a tertiary center. Patients: We preformed oophorectomy or cystectomy though SPA in 17 patients and conventional method in 34 patients from December 1, 2008 to March 30, 2009. Intervention: Oophorectomy or cystectomy by SPA or conventional pelviscopy. Measurements and Main Results: SPA group and conventional group were balanced well in basal characteristics. There was no difference in age (years, 44.7 in SPA group vs 39.9 in conventional group), body mass index (kg/m2, 22.8 vs 23.3), percent of previous abdominal operation history (35.3% vs 44.1%), the longest diameter of ovarian tumor (cm, 5.6 vs 6.2) and bilaterality (1 case vs 2 cases) measured by transvaginal sonogram between two groups. During operation, the proportion of cystectomy (29.4% vs 41.2%) and oophorectomy (70.6% vs 58.8%), the frequency of adhesion according severity (mild/moderate/severe, 29.4%/11.8%/17.6% vs 23.5%/8.8%/8.9%) and pathological findings were not different in both groups. Comparing operative outcomes between two groups, in SPA group, hospital stay (days, 2 vs 2), operation time (min, 64 vs 57.5) and hemoglobin change (Hb, 1.3 vs 1.1) before and after surgery was comparable to conventional group. There was a tendency of decreased usage of additional pain killer (total amount of pain killer, 7 vs 28, P = 0.132) in SPA group, not statistically significantly. Conclusion: Pelviscopic management of presumptive benign ovarian tumor though SPA has comparable operative outcomes against conventional approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".