Influence of a robotic camera holder on postoperative pain in women undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the influence of a robotic camera holder on postoperative pain in women undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-one women were prospectively enrolled in the study and underwent either conventional laparoscopy or laparoscopy using an active camera holder. Twenty-four and 48 h after surgery abdominal pain was assessed using the short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Demographic data, and clinical and surgical parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-seven women underwent laparoscopy with an active camera holder (study group) and 34 women underwent laparoscopy with human camera assistance (control group). Women in the study group were older (43.5±8.6 vs. 37.4±10.4 years; p=0.018) while the duration of surgery was shorter in women who underwent conventional laparoscopy (97±37 vs. 71±33 min; p=0.005). Total pain scores 24 h (28.3±24.2 vs. 44.0±35.0; p=0.049643) as well as 48 h (18.0±20.0 vs. 33.8±31.0; p=0.016) after surgery were significantly less in the study group. CONCLUSION: The usage of a robotic camera holder results in less postoperative pain in women undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".