“Needlescopic” Heller Myotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MIS continues to evolve with the introduction of new techniques and technology. This report discusses the use of "needlescopic" technology in the surgical management of achalasia. Heller myotomy procedures performed between January 1, 1997, and July 1, 2000, were analyzed and the results of 14 needlescopic procedures were compared with 15 laparoscopic procedures. Demographic and short-term outcome data were compared for each group using chi2, Fisher exact, and Student t tests where appropriate. Both groups were similar in age and gender. However, the needlescopic group weighed less (72.2 vs. 83.5 kg; P = 0.05). Intraoperatively, the needlescopic procedures were shorter (98.2 vs. 131.9 minutes; P = 0.03). There were no conversions to open surgery or differences in the number of intraoperative complications for either group. Postoperatively, the groups had similar complications, time to normal diet, and analgesia requirements. Nonetheless, the needlescopic group had a shorter length of stay in hospital (1.1 vs. 2.0 days; P = 0.04). Needlescopic Heller myotomy appears to be a safe treatment option, resulting in a decreased length of stay and improved wound cosmesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".