Two-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate two-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (2I-LC) in children, and compare outcomes with four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (4P-LC). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on children (≤21 years) with gallbladder disease treated with 2I-LC or 4P-LC between February 2010 and February 2016. 2I-LC is performed using two 5-mm ports and a 2-mm endoscopic grasper within a 12-mm umbilical incision, and a 3-mm subxiphoid port for dissection. Demographic, diagnostic, operative, and outcome data were recorded, and the two groups were compared with chi-squared, Fisher, and t-tests. Patients requiring conversion from 2I-LC to 4P-LC were examined to determine factors predicting the need for additional ports. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-nine laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed (2I-LC 72.0%, 4P-LC 19.0%). Body mass index (BMI) was greater in the 4P-LC group. 2I-LC was more commonly performed for biliary dyskinesia, but not biliary colic, acute cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis, and gallstone pancreatitis. Operative time was greater in 4P-LC. There were 6 wound infections (2I-LC 1.8%, 4P-LC 1.5%), 1 common bile duct injury (2I-LC 0.4%, 4P-LC 0.0%), and 1 small bowel injury (2I-LC 0.0%, 4P-LC 1.5%). 2.4% of 2I-LC required conversion to 4P-LC, with BMI and operative time greater than the 2I-LC group, but not different from 4P-LC with no complications. CONCLUSIONS: 2I-LC is a safe alternative to 4P-LC for pediatric gallbladder disease, allowing for traction and countertraction to expose the critical view. Operative time was longer in the 4P-LC group, likely secondary to selection bias with higher BMI and preoperative diagnosis of gallstone disease. Overweight patients are more likely to require additional ports.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".