The role of peritoneal lavage in benign gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic surgery offers many advantages compared to invasive surgery but one of the main problems is postoperative pain, partially resulting from the peritoneal inflammatory process mediated by inflammatory cytokines. The rationale of this study is that intraperitoneal washing could remove inflammatory mediators that are the cause of postoperative pain and could help in the removal of CO2 from the abdominal cavity. This article aims to analyze the effects of peritoneal lavage in the reduction of postoperative shoulder pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 277 patients enrolled to undergo laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were included in the study. Women are randomized into two groups, according to the use or non-use of peritoneal lavage with saline solution at the end of laparoscopic gynecological major procedures. RESULTS: Data show that the peritoneal lavage can significantly reduce postoperative pain in the first 36 hours after surgery, as well as patients' requests for analgesics: during the first 3 postoperative days, requests for paracetamol were lower in the YW (Yes Washing) group than the NW (No Washing) group (77 vs. 101; p<0.05); similar results are obtained considering ketorolac administration (62 vs. 71; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal lavage after gynecological laparoscopic procedures may be effective in the reduction of postoperative pain and use of analgesics.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".