Laparoscopic ovariectomy in guinea pigs: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic ovariectomy in guinea pigs utilizing 3‐mm minilaparoscopic instruments. Study design Experimental pilot study. Animals Guinea pigs (n = 3). Methods The guinea pigs were sedated, placed under general anesthesia, and intubated under endoscopic visualization. A 3‐port technique was used with a 3.9‐mm cannula for the endoscope and two 3.5‐mm cannulas accommodating 3‐mm endoscopic instruments including a 3‐mm vessel sealing device, grasping forceps, and endoscopic scissors. The abdomen was insufflated with CO 2 to a pressure of 6–8 mm Hg. The guinea pigs were manually tilted 90° laterally to visualize the dorsally positioned ovaries. Results The procedure was successfully performed in all 3 animals. The surgery times were 120, 45, 45 minutes for the 3 guinea pigs, and anesthesia times were 186, 90, and 76 minutes, respectively. Placing the animals in complete lateral recumbency was found to be critical to visualize and manipulate the ovaries. The guinea pigs recovered smoothly from anesthesia. Conclusion Laparoscopic ovariectomy with 3‐mm minilaparoscopic instrumentation using a 3‐port technique was feasible in guinea pigs. Clinical significance Laparoscopic ovariectomy can be considered as an alternative to open ovariectomy as an elective surgical technique to prevent reproductive disorders in guinea pigs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".