Effects of intra-abdominal pressure on laparoscopic working space in domestic rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of 3 intra-abdominal pressures (IAPs) on pneumoperitoneal (laparoscopic working space) volume in domestic rabbits ( Oryctolagus cuniculus ). ANIMALS 6 female New Zealand White rabbits. PROCEDURES A Latin-square design was used to randomly allocate sequences of 3 IAPs (4, 8, and 12 mm Hg) to each rabbit in a crossover study. Rabbits were anesthetized, subumbilical cannulae were placed, and CT scans were performed to obtain baseline measurements. Each IAP was achieved with CO 2 insufflation and maintained for ≥ 15 minutes; CT scans were performed with rabbits in dorsal, left lateral oblique, and right lateral oblique recumbency. The abdomen was desufflated for 5 minutes between treatments (the 3 IAPs). Pneumoperitoneal volumes were calculated from CT measurements with 3-D medical imaging software. Mixed linear regression models evaluated effects of IAP, rabbit position, and treatment order on working space volume. RESULTS Mean working space volume at an IAP of 8 mm Hg was significantly greater (a 19% increase) than that at 4 mm Hg, and was significantly greater (a 6.9% increase) at 12 mm Hg than that at 8 mm Hg. Treatment order, but not rabbit position, also had a significant effect on working space. Minor adverse effects reported in other species were observed in some rabbits. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE A nonlinear increase in abdominal working space was observed with increasing IAP. Depending on the type of procedure and visual access requirements, IAPs > 8 mm Hg may not provide a clinically important benefit for laparoscopy in rabbits.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".