A prospective randomized controlled trial: single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy vs. traditional three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy(SILC) compared with conventional three-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy(3PLC). Methods Fifty-four patients diagnosed with biliary deases were included in this study at our institution. The patients were randomized into two groups: 3PLC group(n= 28) and SILC group(n= 26). Data including gender, age, weight, height, body mass index, operative duration, pain scores, percentage of conversion during the operation and vancouver scar scale were prospectively collected and analyzed. Patients were prospectively collected and analyzed. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Results There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to gender, age, weight, height and body mass index. The operation time in SILC group was significantly longer than that in 3PLC group[(56.9±15.8) min vs.(35.2±8.7) min,P< 0.01]. On the first day after operation, the pain scores were higher for SILC with the application of equal narcotic drugs. There were no statistically signiicnat differences between the two groups in terms of total pain scores. Wound complications were severer in SILC, but there was no significant difference in incidence of incision hernia between the two groups. Cosmetic scores were favored for SILC(11.7±0.8 vs.10.1±1.2,P< 0.05). Conclusion This prospective randomized controlled study showed that SILC is safe and feasible in treating patients with simple biliary diseases compared with 3PLC. Key words: Cholecystectomy; Laparoscopy
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".