Randomized, prospective comparison of postoperative pain in low‐ versus high‐pressure pneumoperitoneum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduced postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) compared to open cholecystectomy (OC) may be able to be further optimized. To reduce pain, focus should be directed on the effects of individual components of pain. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was carried out in a tertiary care hospital. Fifty-three elective patients with symptomatic gallstones were enrolled into the study. Patients were randomized to low- or high-pressure pneumoperitoneum groups. In all patients, gas pressure was set to 15 mmHg during placement of ports. Later on, in the low-pressure group, the rest of the procedure was performed at 10 mmHg pressure. At 6 and 24 h postoperatively, a short-form McGill Questionnaire (MPQ) was obtained from all patients. Patients were then asked to complete a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) for abdominal pain. RESULTS: Pain scores were generally low for both groups. Statistical comparisons of mean cumulative McGill score and VAS abdominal pain scores in both groups did not reach statistical significance at 6 and 24 h after operation. CONCLUSION: There was no correlation between high- and low-pressure laparoscopy and postoperative pain after LC. Peritoneal stretching may be more responsible for shoulder pain but has less effect on intensity of abdominal pain or incisional pain. On the basis of these negative findings, routine use of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum for alleviation of postoperative pain following LC is not recommended.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".