Comparative Changes in Tissue Oxygenation Between Laparoscopic and Open Cholecystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies examined the effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) versus open cholecystectomy (OC) on physiological variables of the respiratory system. In this study we compared changes in arterial blood gases-related parameters between LC and OC to assess their comparative influence on gas exchange. METHODS: We studied 28 patients, operated under identical anesthetic protocol (LC: 18 patients, OC: 10 patients). Measurements were made on the morning before surgery (BS), the second (AS2) and the eighth (AS8) postoperative day. Studied parameters, including alveolar-arterial difference in PO2 ((A-a)DO2) and oxygen content (Oct in vol%), were statistically compared. RESULTS: On AS2 a greater increase was found in ((A-a)DO2) for the OC compared to LC (4.673 ± 0.966 kPa versus 3.773 ± 1.357 kPa, respectively). Between BS and AS2, Oct in vol% decreased from 17.55 ± 1.90 to 15.69 ± 1.88 in the LC and from 16.99 ± 2.37 to 14.62 ± 2.23 in the OC, whilst a reduction (P = 0.093) between AS2 and AS8 was also found for the open method. Besides, on AS2, SaO2% decrease was greater in OC compared to LC (P = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: On AS2, the greater increase in OC-((A-a)DO2) associated with Oct in vol% and SaO2% findings also in OC group suggest that LC might be associated with lower risk for impaired tissue oxygenation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".