Feasibility and Safety of Adhesiolysis Using Transgastric NOTES Approach: A Pilot Survival Study in a Porcine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although adhesions can be removed by adhesiolysis using laparotomy or laparoscopy, they typically recur sometimes with equal severity. It is suggested that minimizing the invasiveness of the operative technique by using natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) may reduce adhesion re-formation. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of adhesiolysis by using a novel transgastric NOTES approach and collect pilot data on adhesion recurrence after transgastric NOTES adhesiolysis. METHODS: One nonsurvival and 5 survival female pigs were used in this experimental survival study. Interventions included (a) induction of adhesions by laparotomy, (b) 2 weeks survival, (c) transgastric NOTES adhesiolysis with endoscopic evaluation and scoring of adhesions before and immediately after adhesiolysis, (d) 2 weeks survival, and (e) necropsy with endoscopic and necroscopic evaluation and scoring of recurrent adhesions. Main outcome measures were (a) survival and complication rates and (b) assessment of adhesion formation and re-formation using the Hopkins Adhesion Formation Score. RESULTS: No mortality and no complications were observed. A total of 11 adhesions formed before the adhesiolysis in 5 survival study animals. All were successfully divided. The frequency of adhesions and median adhesion formation score decreased significantly immediately after adhesiolysis compared with that prior to the procedure (frequency, 11 vs 0, P = .011; the median score = 2.0 [range 1-3] vs 0.0 [range 0-0], P = .004). The treatment gains maintained at 2 weeks after the adhesiolysis. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study were the low number of study animals and short-term follow-up data. CONCLUSIONS: Adhesiolysis using NOTES transgastric approach is feasible, safe, and effective with minimal adhesion re-formation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".