Comparative Study of Complications and Incision Esthetic Satisfaction Between Single-Port Laparoscopy and Traditional Laparoscopy in Benign Gynecological Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is an effective, minimally invasive, feasible, and promising surgical technique for the treatment of various benign and malignant gynecological diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in surgical conditions, complications, and esthetic incisions between SPLS and traditional laparoscopic surgery (TLS) in benign gynecological surgeries. Fifty-one eligible patients were included, and their general information (age, surgical approach), surgical conditions (surgical time, blood loss, postoperative first flatus), postoperative pain, and incision healing were collected. There was a significant difference in the results of hysterectomy between the two groups. The surgical time in the SPLS group was significantly shorter than that in the TLS group (<i>p</i> = 0.026). Furthermore, the SPLS group had less blood loss (<i>p</i> < 0.05) and earlier postoperative first flatus (<i>p</i> < 0.05) than the control group. There was no significant difference in postoperative conditions between the two groups. During the follow-up, it was found that the Vancouver Scar Scale score was 8.37 ± 2.30 in the control group and 6.81 ± 2.14 in the study group. The cosmetic effect and satisfaction were better in the SPLS group (<i>p</i> = 0.018). Subgroup analysis showed that in other benign gynecological diseases without uterine lesions, SPLS significantly improved surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative first flatus (<i>p</i> < 0.05). SPLS demonstrated good clinical efficacy in benign gynecological surgery, with shorter surgical time, less blood loss, earlier postoperative first flatus, fewer complications, and better cosmetic effects of scars.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".