Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the indications, and the safety and efficacy of operative laparoscopy in pregnancy with a particular attention to the pregnancy outcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Hemodynamics changes during laparoscopic surgery in pregnancy are similar to those observed in the nonpregnant state. The procedure appears to be safe and reduces hospital admissions and frequency of premature labor. The safest time to perform laparoscopic surgery in pregnancy is at the second trimester. However, it can be complicated by injury to the gravid uterus and pregnancy loss. This is illustrated by a recent report of accidental gas insufflation into the amniotic cavity leading to the fetal loss. SUMMARY: The most common indications of laparoscopy in pregnancy are cholelithiasis, appendicitis, persistent ovarian cyst and adnexal torsion. In general, it is associated with a good maternal and fetal outcome. The occurrence of a miscarriage, premature labor or fetal death appears to be related to the underlying pathology, independent of the operative intervention. Due to the displacement of the appendix by the gravid uterus and the physiologic elevation of white blood cell count in pregnancy, diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnancy can be delayed with its sequelle. In one report, the incidence of fetal loss is 1.5% in uncomplicated appendicitis and 35% in the presence of ruptured appendicitis. Similarly, the fetal loss rate in uncomplicated cholecystectomy is 4%, but the fetal mortality in gallstone pacreatitis could be up to 60%. Laparoscopy in pregnancy should be performed with utmost care. In the second trimester of pregnancy, open laparoscopic approach is strongly recommended.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".