Gastric Fluid Volume in Patients Fasting for Clear Fluid Ingestion from Midnight Versus 2 Hours Prior Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the mean gastric fluid volume in the group ingesting clear fluid 8 hours prior to surgery (8-hour group) in comparison to the group ingesting clear liquid 2 hours prior to surgery (2-hour group) Study Design: Randomized controlled trial Place and Duration of Study: Department of Anesthesiology, The Indus Hospital, Karachi from 30th June 2016to 20th May 2017. Methodology: Sixty eligible patients were identified in the preoperative visit and all study detail was discussed with the patients and informed consent was obtained. Patients were divided two equal groups through randomization i.e. 2 hours fasting prior to surgery versus 8 hours fasting prior to surgery. The insertion of nasogastric tube is required in all laparoscopic cholecystectomies to deflate the stomach, not only to improve surgical view but also to avoid gastric injury on trocar insertion. Aspirate from stomach was through 20ml syringe. Volume of aspirate was also noted. Results: Mean age in 2 hours fasting prior to surgery and 8 hours fasting prior to surgery was 36.20±10.14 with CI (32.41-39.98) and 38.90±10.27 with C.I (35.06-42.73) years respectively. Five (16.7%) male and 25 (83.3%) female was enrolled in 2 hours fasting prior to surgery group and 6 (20.0%) male and 24 (80.0%) female were included in 8 hours fasting prior to surgery group. In comparison of both groups, mean of 2 hours prior to surgery group was 11.53±3.68 and in 8 hours prior to surgery group was 13.66±5.32 and P value found to be non-significant (p=0.076). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in mean gastric fluid volume between the group ingesting clear fluid 8 hours prior to surgery (8-hour group) in comparison to the group ingesting clear liquid 2 hours prior to surgery (2-hour group). Keywords: Gastric fluid, Preoperative fasting, Cholecystectomy
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".