A prospective randomized study comparing unipolar versus bipolar hysteroscopic myomectomy in infertile women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Study Objective:</b> To compare the operative and reproductive outcome of hysteroscopic myomectomy using unipolar resectoscope versus bipolar resectoscope in patients with infertility and menorrhagia. <b>Design:</b> Randomized, prospective, parallel, comparative, single-blinded study. <b>Design Classification:</b> Canadian Task Force classification I. <b>Setting:</b> Tertiary care institute. <b>Patients:</b> Sixty women with submucous myoma and infertility. <b>Interventions:</b> Hysteroscopic myomectomy performed with unipolar resectoscope or bipolar resectoscope. <b>Measurements:</b> Primary outcome measures were the pregnancy-related indicators. Secondary outcome measures were the operative parameters, harmful outcomes related to the procedure, and comparison of improvement levels in the menstrual pattern after surgery between the two groups. <b>Main Results:</b> A total of 60 patients were randomized into two groups of equal size. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Reduction in sodium level from pre- to postsurgery was significantly (<i>P</i> = 0.001) higher in the unipolar group. Nine patients (30%) in the unipolar group had hyponatremia in the postoperative period compared to none in the bipolar group (<i>P</i> = 0.002). However, there was no significant difference in the other operative parameters between the two groups. In both the groups, a significant improvement in the menstrual symptoms was observed after myomectomy. Pregnancy-related outcomes were similar in both the groups. <b>Conclusion:</b> The use of bipolar resectoscope for hysteroscopic myomectomy is associated with lesser risk of hyponatremia compared to unipolar resectoscope. Bipolar resectoscopic myomectomy is found to be an effective and safer alternative to unipolar resectoscopy with similar reproductive outcome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".