Surgeons’ early experience with the Acessa™ procedure: gaining proficiency with new technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kelli M Braun,1 Mark Sheridan,2 Erin Z Latif,1 Lexy Regush,3 Anet Maksymowicz,4 Laura Weins,5 Mohamed A Bedaiwy,6 Nerissa Tyson,5 Marilyn J Davidson,2 Barry H Sanders7 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA; 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Saskatoon Obstetric and Gynecologic Consultants, 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Regina General Hospital, Regina, 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon City Hospital, Saskatoon, SK, 6Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, British Columbia Women’s Hospital, Vancouver, 7Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of General Gynaecology and Obstetrics and Division of Gynaecologic Specialties, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada Purpose: Successful adoption of a new surgical procedure varies among practicing surgeons, and skill acquisition depends on the surgeon’s innate ability, the complexity of the technique, and training. We report intraoperative and near-term postoperative outcomes from the Acessa procedure conducted by minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons new to Acessa, and report the surgeons’ experiences during the training period.Patients and methods: The study was designed as a postmarket, prospective, single-arm, multicenter analysis of operative and early postoperative outcomes after proctored surgical training with the Acessa device and procedure (laparoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency volumetric thermal ablation of symptomatic fibroids) in premenopausal, menstruating women as conducted in community and university hospitals in the USA and Canada. Surgeons completed evaluation forms once they felt they could safely and comfortably conduct the operations.Results: Ten gynecologic surgeons without prior Acessa experience completed 40 Acessa procedures – all on an outpatient basis. Mean procedure time was 1.9±1.0 hours and was similar to that reported in the pivotal premarket study (2.1±1.0 hours). Two intraoperative complications occurred: a 1 cm uterine serosal laceration due to uterine manipulation and blood loss from both the probe insertion site and the lysis of uterine-omental adhesions. No postoperative complications or reinterventions for fibroid symptoms were reported. The surgeons completed the evaluation forms after two to five cases, and none found any factors affecting procedure efficiency to be inferior or needing improvement.Conclusion: Minimally invasive gynecologic surgeons new to Acessa can perform the procedure and provide acceptable outcomes after two to five proctored cases. Keywords: myoma, fibroid, leiomyoma, laparoscopic ultrasound, education, radiofrequency ablation
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".