Minilaparotomy for Aortoiliac Aneurysmal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vascular surgery is evolving, as other specialities, toward minimally invasive techniques. Presently, 3 approaches to aortoiliac disease are suggested as minimally invasive. Besides the endovascular procedures, laparoscopic techniques and minilaparotomy are being advocated. Although for aneurysmal disease, we favor a totally laparoscopic approach, criticisms raised over laparoscopy-assisted techniques by those advocating minilaparotomy led us to investigate the benefits of the latter technique. We first evaluated the procedure in 7 patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We found the procedure impossible to perform with an 8- to 10-cm incision in 6 of the 7 patients. This led us to evaluate causes of failure of the technique. It appeared to us that most of our complications were related to inadequate exposure. Fifty consecutive computed tomography scans from patients with AAA of surgical size were then reviewed to evaluate the aneurysm lengths and compare them to the reported lengths of skin incision for minilaparotomy. Results were expressed adding a total of 2 cm for proximal and distal clamping. Only 2% of patients would present with aneurysms suitable for treatment through an 8-cm midline incision and 30% through a 10-cm incision. We then reviewed the literature on minilaparotomy. We believe that minilaparotomy should be reserved for those patients with purely aortic disease and the appropriate body habitus.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".