Single-Incision Laparoscopy in Gynecologic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgical outcomes for gynecologic surgery performed by single-incision laparoscopy compared with conventional multi-incision laparoscopy. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov through August 2012. We also screened reference lists of retrieved articles and manually searched abstracts from conference proceedings. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized control trials (RCTs) and high-quality observational studies that compared outcomes for single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy for gynecologic surgery in patients. Included studies met predefined quality criteria and reported, at minimum, on complications, conversions, and operative time. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, RESULTS: Six RCTs and 15 observational studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 2,085 patients (899 single-incision laparoscopies and 1,186 conventional laparoscopies). In the pooled analysis, there was no significant difference in the risk of total complications between single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy groups (relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.40; P=.97, random effects model). The meta-analysis was powered to detect a 5% difference in complications (power=0.8, alpha=0.05). Mean operative time for adnexal surgery performed by single-incision laparoscopy was 6.97 minutes longer than conventional laparoscopy (95% CI 0.16-13.77; P=.045; I=47.2; random effects based on three RCTs). There was no significant difference in mean operative time for hysterectomy procedures performed by single-incision laparoscopy (8.29 minutes, 95% CI -5.85 to 22.43; P=.251; I=83.6; random effects based on three RCTs). Clinical outcomes of postoperative pain, change in hemoglobin, length of hospital stay, and scar cosmesis could not be pooled because of paucity of data and lack of uniform reporting. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the risk of complications between single-incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy approaches in gynecologic surgery. Studies with imprecise effect sizes suggest that single-incision laparoscopy may have longer operative time for adnexal surgery, but not for hysterectomy. Effects on other surgical outcomes remain uncertain.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".