Prospective Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Resection for Benign Colorectal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laparoscopic surgery is not being applied in a widespread manner in the management of benign or malignant colorectal disorders. This is a prospective comparison of 279 patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery. Colorectal diseases included inflammatory bowel, diverticular disease, colonic inertia, polyps, and rectal prolapse. Data included 136 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (mean age, 51.3 years) and 143 who underwent open surgery (mean age, 56.0 years). Thirteen patients' procedures were converted to open, but their results were included in the laparoscopic surgery group. There was no significant difference in operative time, postoperative complications, morbidity, or mortality between the laparoscopic and open surgery groups. More patients in the laparoscopic group had significant cardiac disease (6.0%, laparoscopic; 0.7%, open; = 0.01). More patients in the open group had undergone previous gastrointestinal surgery (3.7%, laparoscopic; 11.2%, open; = 0.02). The laparoscopic group used less postoperative analgesia and resumed oral feeding quicker ( < 0.05). In addition, time to first flatus and bowel movement was faster ( < 0.05), and the length of postoperative hospital stay (7.7 +/- 15.8 versus 11.0 +/- 8.3; = 0.03) was shorter in the laparoscopic surgery group. There are significant advantages in postoperative recovery with the laparoscopic technique. If proven to be cost-effective, laparoscopic colorectal surgery for benign diseases should become the standard of surgical care.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".