Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoendoscopic single site surgery (LESS), a minimally invasive procedure, is performed in many hospitals. Although its cosmetic superiority is widely touted, some authors have disputed this view. Here, we compare the surgical and long-term cosmetic outcomes of and patient satisfaction with postoperative wounds for LESS and over 2-port laparoscopy (OTPL), including 2-port laparoscopy (TPL) and standard laparoscopy (SL), after a 6-mo follow-up period. METHODS: A total of 125 patients who underwent adnexal surgery performed by the same surgeon at the same institution between March 2005 and May 2017 were included. The patients were divided into 2 groups: the LESS group and the OTPL group. The patients completed an evaluation using the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS, used to evaluate linear scars) and the Ultimate Question (UQ, used to determine overall patient satisfaction). We evaluated surgical scars using the Observer Scar Assessment Scale, which includes the Umbilical Scar Overall Shape Assessment Scale (USOSAS) and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the PSAS, UQ, USOSAS, and VSS results between the study groups. The USOSAS score was consistently correlated with VSS scores of 2, 3, and 4 and the total VSS score, indicating that the USOSAS score may be as effective as the VSS score. CONCLUSIONS: Because the long-term patient satisfaction with and cosmetic wound outcomes of LESS were not significantly different from those achieved by OTPL, surgeons should consider performing LESS after weighing the pros and cons with regard to the patient's condition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".