Analysis of a Standardized Technique for Laparoscopic Cuff Closure following 1924 Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To review the vaginal cuff complications from a large series of total laparoscopic hysterectomies in which the laparoscopic culdotomy closure was highly standardized. Methods. Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force Classification II-3) of consecutive total and radical laparoscopic hysterectomy patients with all culdotomy closures performed laparoscopically was conducted using three guidelines: placement of all sutures 5 mm deep from the vaginal edge with a 5 mm interval, incorporation of the uterosacral ligaments with the pubocervical fascia at each angle, and, whenever possible, suturing the bladder peritoneum over the vaginal cuff edge utilizing two suture types of comparable tensile strength. Four outcomes are reviewed: dehiscence, bleeding, infection, and adhesions. Results. Of 1924 patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy, 44 patients (2.29%) experienced a vaginal cuff complication, with 19 (0.99%) requiring reoperation. Five patients (0.26%) had dehiscence after sexual penetration on days 30-83, with 3 requiring reoperation. Thirteen patients (0.68%) developed bleeding, with 9 (0.47%) requiring reoperation. Twenty-three (1.20%) patients developed infections, with 4 (0.21%) requiring reoperation. Three patients (0.16%) developed obstructive small bowel adhesions to the cuff requiring laparoscopic lysis. Conclusion. A running 5 mm deep × 5 mm apart culdotomy closure that incorporates the uterosacral ligaments with the pubocervical fascia, with reperitonealization when possible, appears to be associated with few postoperative vaginal cuff complications.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".