GG-01 : What is the ideal skin closure method after single-port laparoscopic surgery?; A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the cosmetic outcomes of umbilical scar and patient`s satisfaction according to closure methods in the women underwent single port laparoscopic surgery (SP-LS). This prospective randomized study was carried out in women who were scheduled to receive elective SP-LS for gynecologic disease. Participating patient were randomized to undergo skin closure of their umbilical incision with either only subcutaneous suture without subcuticular suture (case group) or subcutaneous suture with subcuticular suture (control group). Cosmetic outcome was evaluated at at postoperative 5 and 13 weeks. Objective and subjective scar analysis were performed using the Vancouver scar scale, the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS), and a visual analog scale (VAS). Overall satisfaction with the surgery was evaluated with VAS. 162 women were included in this study, And 68 and 70 women enrolled in the case group and control group. There was no difference in the scar assessment and satisfaction with the surgery between both groups. Comparing with subcutaneous suture with subcuticular suture in umbilical wound closure of SP-LS, only subcutaneous suture without subcuticular suture offers the satisfactory cosmetic outcome and satisfaction with the surgery. However, large, randomized trials including other closure methods are needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".