Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Malrotation Without Volvulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We wished to determine the risks and benefits of laparoscopic surgery when compared to the standard open approach in the management of children with malrotation without volvulus. Patients and Methods: Eighteen children undergoing laparoscopic surgery were compared to 20 similar children having open surgery during the same time period (1994-1999). Results: Three laparoscopic cases were converted. Six (33%) laparoscopic patients were found to have a broad-based mesentery at laparoscopy, and underwent appendectomy alone. The rest went on to a Ladd procedure. Eight (40%) open patients were found intraoperatively to have a broad-based mesentery. The laparoscopic group required less narcotic, was faster to full feeds, and had a shorter mean postoperative stay. On followup, there were no late complications in the laparoscopic group, but 2 (10%) open surgery patients developed adhesive small bowel obstruction. There were no cases of late volvulus following either laparoscopic or open surgery. Conclusion: Laparoscopy permits direct evaluation of the mesenteric base, with the option of a laparoscopic Ladd procedure if indicated. It results in less postoperative pain, decreased ileus, and a shorter hospitalization. The laparoscopic approach is safe and effective, and does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of late volvulus.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".