Endoscopic saphenectomy for coronary artery bypass surgery: comparison of two techniques with and without carbon dioxide insufflation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical results of an initial experience with two techniques of endoscopic saphenectomy with and without gas insufflation. DESIGN: A retrospective study was performed between September 1998 and March 1999 on 40 patients who underwent endoscopic saphenectomy for coronary artery bypass graft without (group 1, n=15) and with (group 2, n=25) carbon dioxide insufflation. INTERVENTIONS: In both groups, the site of harvesting was at the knee through a 2 cm incision. In group 1, dissection was performed using a hand-held dissector while in group 2 dissection was performed after ensuring that there was a seal at the knee and insufflation of carbon dioxide. Collaterals were controlled with an endoclipper in group 1 and bipolar scissors in group 2. Intraoperative procedure time, length of the harvested vein and aspect of the thigh (ecchymosis, hematoma, infection) were recorded. RESULTS: Vein trauma occurred in four patients in group 1 (four of 15, 27%) and in one in group 2 (one of 25, 4%). Hematomas developed in four patients in group 1 (four of 15, 27%) and in one patient in group 2 (one of 25, 4%). Wound infection occurred in no patients in group 1 and in one patient in group 2. One patient in group 2 suffered carbon dioxide embolism with no untoward consequences. Conversion to an open technique was necessary in five patients in group 1 (five of 15, 33%) and in two patients in group 2 (two of 25, 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic saphenectomy both with and without carbon dioxide insufflation is associated with a low infection rate, but vein trauma and wound hematomas are more common without carbon dioxide insufflation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".