The Effect of Age and Body Mass Index on the Surgical Anatomy of Supraumbilical Port Insertion: Implications for Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery is the preferred approach for performing many gynecologic procedures. Occasionally, supraumbilical port placement may be preferable to optimize visibility and maneuverability although the risks of complications are less well characterized compared to umbilical entry. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of computed tomograms from 92 patients to evaluate the anatomic considerations for umbilical and supraumbilical port entry based on patient age, body mass index (BMI), parity, abdominal wall thickness, and distance to the great vessels. RESULTS: Supraumbilical entry was not associated with differences in distance to the great vessels compared to the umbilicus. However, supraumbilical location and BMI were associated with greater abdominal wall thickness. Age and BMI were associated with greater distance to the great vessels, while age was associated with thinner abdominal wall. Multiple linear regression confirmed independent effects of age and BMI. No association between parity and distance to retroperitoneal vessels was observed. CONCLUSION: Younger patients may be at increased risk for great vessel injury and pre-peritoneal insufflation. Obese patients may be at risk for pre-peritoneal insufflation, while patients with BMI < 30, particularly with a skin-to-aorta distance < 7 cm, may be at an increased risk for great vessel injury. Surgeons should consider these factors when considering supraumbilical port entry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".