Coagulation-Induced Diaphragm Fenestrations after Laparoscopic Excision of Diaphragmatic Endometriosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE To present an unusual consequence of laparoscopic treatment of diaphragmatic endometriosis, to discuss the possible etiologies, and to propose proper management. DESIGN A step-by-step explanation of 2 surgeries of the same patient using intraoperative video sequences (Canadian Task Force classification III). SETTING University hospital. PATIENT A 32-year-old woman. INTERVENTIONS Two Laparoscopic surgeries. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Endometriosis is estimated to affect 11% of the population [1,2], with an estimated 12% of these patients having extrapelvic endometriosis [3]. When the diaphragm is involved, the disease potentially causes severe and debilitating symptoms such as catamenial chest or shoulder pain. Serious complications may involve pneumothorax and hemopneumothorax [4-6]. Diaphragmatic endometriosis is more common than realized and has been shown to occur simultaneously in 50% to 80% of cases with pelvic endometriosis [7,8]. A 32-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital with severe disabling dysmenorrhea and right shoulder pain. Despite progestin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and opioid treatment, pain relief remained inadequate. A laparoscopy was performed revealing diaphragmatic endometriosis, which was completely excised. A revision was necessary 14 months later because of pain recurrence in the right hemithorax and suspicion of new or persistent endometriotic lesions. The laparoscopy revealed small diaphragm fenestrations that were closed after exclusion of recurrent diaphragmatic or pleural endometriosis. No chest tube was placed, and the postoperative course was uneventful. Hormonal suppressive treatment was continued. Since the operation the patient has been pain free. Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee ruled that approval was not required for this study (Req-2017-00415). CONCLUSION The diaphragm fenestrations were possibly the result of tissue necrosis caused by thermocoagulation after excision of deep endometriotic lesions during the first surgery. Using a CO2 laser for the vaporization of superficial lesions is favorable because of the smaller depth of penetration compared with electrocautery and better access to hard to reach areas [9,10]. Endometriotic lesions involving the entire thickness of the diaphragm should be completely excised and the defect repaired with either sutures or staples [11-13].
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".