Complication of open versus Laparoscopic Cholecystactomy: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:The aim of the study was to compare complication of cholecystectomy i.e. open cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy according to Toronto system and to find out whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy was safer with least postoperative discomfort and hospital stay.Design: Retrospective study Methodology: Study was conducted on 100 patients undergoing cholecystectomy.50 patients of open cholecystectomy and 50 patients of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Surgical Ward, J.A. Group of Hospitals, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior.Result: Maximum number of patients (24%) were belongs to 30-55 years of age.Male:female ratio was 9:41 for open cholecystectomy and 4:46 for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Gall bladder stone disease were 6-9 times more common in female patients.Intraoperative complication was 10% in open cholecystectomy and 8% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and postoperative complication were higher in open cholecystectomy.Grade I complication rate was 26% in open cholecystectomy and 12% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Grade II complication was 4% in open cholecystectomy and 8% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy i.e. grade II complication rate was higher in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and conversion rate was 16%, operating time was higher in laparoscopic cholecystectomy group and hospital stay was shorter in laparoscopic cholecystectomy group.Conclusion: Thus we concluded that laparoscopic cholecystectomy was superior procedure for treatment of gall bladder stone disease.As it was associated with decrease complication, decrease postoperative pain, decrease hospital stay and improve cosmetic outcome.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".