Randomized controlled trial of postoperative pain and activity following microlaparoscopy and standard laparoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare postoperative pain and recovery of patients undergoing surgery with the 2‐mm microlaparosope and the 10‐mm standard laparoscope. Design A double‐blind prospective randomized clinical study to assess pain. Setting Monash Medical Centre Women's Health Program, Melbourne, Australia. Subjects 29 women of reproductive age (24–45 years) undergoing diagnostic procedures for fertility were randomly allocated to either microlaparoscopy (ML) or standard laparoscopy (SL). Interventions Of these patients 13 received a microlaparoscopy and 16 received standard laparoscopy. All patients agreed to complete the self‐administered Short‐Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF‐MPQ), immediately after surgery before any analgesia and at 48 h after surgery, in order to assess pain and recovery. Main outcome measures Pain intensity and recovery time for patients undergoing microlaparoscopy were compared with those for standard laparoscopy. Results There was no significant difference between the two groups when the affective, sensory and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, immediately after recovery and at 48 h, were compared. However there was a significant difference in the time to return to normal activity as perceived by the patients, with the ML group scoring a quicker return to normal activity (mean ± SD, 3.6 ± 3.6 compared with the SL group (7.1 ± 3.3) (P = 0.01). This was despite a significant difference in operating times between the two groups. The mean operating time for the ML group was 22.6 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.8–26.5), compared with a mean for the SL group of 16.4 min (95% CI, 13.9–18.8) (P = 0.01). The ML group required no narcotic postoperative analgesia. Conclusion There was no significant difference in pain scores between groups in whom the microlaparoscope or the standard laparoscope were used. However the microlaparoscopy group experienced a quicker post‐surgical recovery, required less analgesia and were more satisfied with their scar.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".