Patient-reported satisfaction and cosmesis outcomes following laparoscopic adrenalectomy: laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy vs. conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluate patient-reported satisfaction and cosmesis of laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy (LESS-A) in comparison with that of conventional laparoscopic adrenalectomy (CLA). METHODS: A total of 19 and 104 patients who respectively underwent LESS-A and CLA between May 1996 and June 2011 were included in the study. Questionnaires inquiring about scar pain (0: not painful, 10: very painful), satisfaction (0: not satisfied, 10: very satisfied) and cosmesis (0: very unsightly, 10: very beautiful) on the basis of a visual analogue scale were sent to patients postoperatively. RESULTS: The respondents consisted of 11 and 54 patients who underwent LESS-A and CLA, respectively. There was no significant inter-group difference in age, sex, affected side or body mass index. No significant differences were observed in operative time or estimated blood loss. There were also no significant differences in pain (0.67 vs. 0.57, p = 0.393), satisfaction (8.92 vs. 8.46, p = 0.453), or cosmesis score (8.58 vs. 8.00, p = 0.487) between the LESS-A and CLA groups overall. In female patients, the satisfaction score was significantly higher in the LESS-A group than in the CLA group (10.0 vs. 8.72, p = 0.049). In young patients (<50 years old), the satisfaction score was also significantly higher in the LESS-A group than in the CLA group (9.17 vs. 6.38, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Young patients and female patients who had received LESS-A adrenal surgery were more satisfied with the scar outcomes than were the young patients and female patients who had received CLA. We suggest that this patient subset most values the cosmetic benefits of LESS-A.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".