Complications and postoperative ileus in laparoscopic versus open colectomy: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Postoperative complications are a major concern after colorectal surgery, and can lead to an increased burden on patients and the healthcare system. Complications include postoperative ileus (POI) and prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI). There are well-established risk factors and potential modifiable risk factors that affect the incidence of POI and PPOI, including invasive techniques, operative difficulty, perioperative blood loss, and delayed mobilization. We compared the incidence of POI, PPOI, and other postoperative complications between laparoscopic colectomy and open colectomy. Methods : This retrospective review investigates 120 patients who underwent either laparoscopic or open colectomy in King AbdulAziz University Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between January 2016 and June 2019. Data were collected from patients’ electronic medical records. Patients were classified into laparoscopic and open colectomy groups. The main outcomes of interest were POI, PPOI and the overall complication rate. These outcomes were calculated and compared between the two groups. Results : The overall incidence of POI and PPOI was 4.2% and 15%, respectively. There was a higher incidence of POI in the laparoscopic approach group (7.2% vs. 1.5%, P =0.03); however, the incidence of PPOI was higher in the open approach group (20% vs. 9.1%, P =0.03). The open surgery group showed a higher rate of overall complications ( P =0.001). The mean estimated blood loss was lower in the laparoscopy group (139.09±145.83 vs. 343.85±307.78 mL; P <0.001). Significant earlier mobilization was observed in the laparoscopic group (3.12±1.77 vs. 5.39±3.48 days; P <0.001). Conclusion: The incidence of PPOI was significantly different depending on the surgical approach; however, the laparoscopy group tolerated regular diet earlier and had better outcomes regarding postoperative complications. The laparoscopic approach was associated with earlier ambulation and was more cost-effective based on the length of the hospital stay. Further randomized studies are required to confirm superiority of the laparoscopic approach in terms of postoperative recovery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".