Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery -- Canadian Practice Patterns and the Role of the Hand Assist Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: 1) To identify laparoscopic colorectal surgery practice patterns in Canada, 2) To systematically review the literature comparing hand assisted laparoscopic surgery to conventional laparoscopic surgery and 3) To design a randomized controlled trial protocol comparing conventional laparoscopic to hand assisted laparoscopic colorectal resections. Methods: A national cross sectional study was undertaken of Canadian General Surgeons with respect to their practice patterns specific to laparoscopic colorectal surgery. A systematic review comparing Conventional laparoscopic to Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic colorectal resections. A randomized controlled trial protocol with methodological discussions regarding issues in surgical trials was written. Results: The majority of Canadian General Surgeons are offering laparoscopic colorectal resections although the volume per surgeon appears to be low. The main barriers to adoption are operating time and lack of formal minimally invasive surgery training. There were two trials identified for inclusion in the systematic review with a total of 94 subjects with some methodological weaknesses. A potential trend towards decreased conversion to open surgery in the hand assisted group was identified. A protocol is presented for a trial comparing hand assisted to conventional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Conclusion: A large percentage of Canadian surgeons perform laparoscopic colorectal resections although many perform less than one case per month. The limited number of trials performed and their associated methodological weaknesses and heterogeneity does not allow a reliable assessment of the relative benefits of hand-assisted and conventional laparoscopic resections for colorectal disease. Additional adequately powered and methodologically sound trials are needed to determine if there is a clinically important difference in perioperative outcomes.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".