Hybrid Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Surgery Using a 2-mm Mini-Laparoscopic Instrument versus Conventional Three-Port Laparoscopy for Gynecologic Adnexal Diseases: A Prospective Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the advantages of laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS), it has certain limitations that include longer surgical time, larger incision, and instrument collision. OBJECTIVE: To overcome these limitations, we incorporated a suprapubic 2-mm needle forceps into our hybridized LESS (hLESS) and evaluated its efficacy for benign adnexal disease in comparison with three-port laparoscopy (TPL). METHODS: This prospective study included 61 women randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio. Incisions of 12 and 2 mm were made, respectively, at the umbilicus and suprapubic areas for hLESS. The length of surgery was compared. Postoperative pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale score, and consumption of analgesics. Cosmetic outcomes were assessed using a modified Vancouver Scar Scale and a body image questionnaire. RESULTS: The length of surgery was found to be similar. The pain score 2-h postoperatively was significantly less in the hLESS group. The scar impact from the hLESS was significantly more favorable compared to that from the TPL. The patients in the hLESS group had a significantly better perception of their body image. CONCLUSION: Despite the reduced umbilical incision size and the absence of specialized instruments required in LESS, the hLESS revealed a similar surgical time, lower postoperative pain, and a better cosmetic outcome compared to TPL.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".