Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open appendectomy in pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the initial absolute or relative contraindication of laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy, in the last decade, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been performed in pregnant women. But few studies compare the outcomes of LA compared with open appendectomy (OA). We investigated clinical outcomes to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LA compared with OA in pregnant women. METHODS: We recruited consecutive pregnant patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis who were undergoing LA or OA between May 2007 and August 2011 into the study. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (22 LA and 39 OA) enrolled in our study. There were no significant differences in duration of surgery, postoperative complication rate and obstetric and fetal outcomes, including incidence of preterm labour, delivery type, gestation age at delivery, birth weight and APGAR scores between the 2 groups. However, the LA group had shorter time to first flatus (2.4 ± 0.4 d v. 4.0 ± 1.7 d, p = 0.034), earlier time to oral intake (2.3 ± 1.6 d v. 4.1 ± 1.9 d, p = 0.023) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (4.2 ± 2.9 d v. 6.9 ± 3.7 d, p = 0.043) than the OA group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a clinically safe and effective procedure in all trimesters of pregnancy and should be considered as a standard treatment alternative to OA. Further evaluation including prospective randomized clinical trials comparing LA with OA are needed to confirm our results.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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".