Laparoscopy in Pregnancy: A Comparative Review of National Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gynecological and general surgical conditions requiring surgical management during pregnancy constitute a medical challenge, which often entails the collaboration of numerous medical specialties. In recent years, laparoscopy in pregnancy has been accepted as a safe alternative to open surgery. This has led gynecological societies to conduct studies and issue guidelines related to laparoscopy in pregnancy, with a view to assisting and guiding clinicians and surgeons. The aim of this study was to review and compare the recommendations from various published national guidelines on laparoscopy in pregnant women. To that end, a descriptive review of guidelines from the British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE), the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOCG), and the Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) was conducted. Regarding diagnosis, the SAGES and SOCG societies recommend ultrasound as the preferred and safe imaging technique during pregnancy. In terms of the optimal timing for laparoscopic intervention, BSGE and SAGES do not restrict the laparoscopic approach based on safety, depending on the gestation week, whereas SOCG and CNGOF propose early second trimester and first and second quarter of pregnancy respectively. There is an overall consensus regarding patient positioning, initial port placement, insufflation pressure during the operation, venous thromboembolic (VTE) prophylaxis, fetal heart monitoring, and tocolysis among the reviewed guidelines. Moreover, only the BSGE mentions the need for corticosteroids, magnesium sulfate, and anti-D prophylactic administration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".