Comparison of 3D vs 2D laparoscopic‐assisted anorectal pull‐through (LAARP) for high anorectal malformations in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The limitation of two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic techniques includes lack of stereoscopic vision and depth perception which can affect surgical performance, physical and mental comfort of the operating surgeon. 3D laparoscopic surgery is popular in adults; however, its application and experience in the pediatric age group have been limited. We did a comparison of 2D and 3D laparoscopic-assisted anorectal pull-through (LAARP) in male high anorectal malformations (ARM). MATERIAL AND METHOD: This prospective cohort study included male children diagnosed with high anorectal malformation (recto-prostatic urethral fistula) who underwent LAARP in infancy after a neonatal colostomy between November 2019 to March 2020. The patients were randomized into a 2D group or 3D group at a 1:1 ratio. Patient demographics and operative/postoperative parameters were recorded. The effect of 3D laparoscopy was assessed in terms of laparoscopy visual parameters (image quality, depth perception, hand-eye coordination, and precision), physical discomfort (5-point Likert scale), and mental strain (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scale). The statistical tests were performed on SPSS version 16. RESULTS: The demographics of both groups, 20 (patients in each), were similar. There was a significant reduction of laparoscopy execution time, physical discomfort (for eye, hand and wrist strain), and overall mental strain in the 3D group. There were similar complications, blood loss, and hospital stay, and no open conversion in two groups. CONCLUSION: 3D LAARP is feasible and safe in the surgical treatment of ARM in children. Further studies with assessment by more than one observer are needed to investigate the wider application of 3D in pediatric surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".