Laparoscopic uterine vessel occlusion in the treatment of women with symptomatic uterine myomas with and without adding laparoscopic myomectomy:4-year results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[[abstract]]STUDY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the necessity of laparoscopic myomectomy (LM) in the treatment of women with symptomatic uterine myomas who are undergoing laparoscopic uterine vessel occlusion (LUVO). DESIGN: A comparative observational study (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). SETTING: Medical center. PATIENTS: In all, 163 patients with symptomatic, uncomplicated myomas warranting myomectomy. A total of 95 patients underwent LUVO and 68 underwent LUVO with LM. INTERVENTIONS: Symptomatic myomas treated by LUVO with or without LM. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The outcome was measured by comparing surgical parameters, immediate postoperative parameters, 4-year evaluations of symptom control, and reintervention (hysterectomy or myomectomy) in both groups. The general characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. No statistical differences existed in complications, success rate, or immediate satisfaction rate between the 2 groups. Compared with LUVO+LM, LUVO had advantages in surgical and immediate postoperative parameters, including less operative time, minimal blood loss, and rapid postoperative recovery; however, LUVO+LM was superior to LUVO in terms of a better and longer duration of symptom relief, a higher level of satisfaction, and avoidance of reintervention. Of the sexually active patients who did not use contraception, 58.8% (10/17) and 66.7% (4/6) became pregnant in groups I and II, respectively (no statistical significance). CONCLUSION: Although LUVO is a less invasive procedure in the treatment of most women with symptomatic myomas, it is also less effective for symptom control and has shorter durable symptom relief compared with LUVO+LM. Reoperation can be avoided in most patients who are treated with LUVO+LM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".