Comparison of Laparoscopic Appendectomy with Open Appendectomy with Respect to Surgical Site Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence of wound infection in laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Study Design: A randomized, controlled study Place and Duration: In the Surgical department of Khalifa Gul Nawaz Medical Teaching Institute, Bannu and Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad for the duration from January 2021 to June 2021. Methods: In this study, 220 patients with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were selected and divided randomly into two groups; OA group (open appendectomy) and LA group (laparoscopic) appendectomy. In both groups, the general anesthesia was given for appendectomy. The wound was examined on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd postoperative day, and then on the 7th and 14th day postoperatively and was scored conferring to the wound asepsis Score. The SSI and total wound asepsis score was calculated subsequently. Results: Total of 200 patients with acute appendicitis were selected. In laparoscopic appendectomy (LA); 22.0±7.85 years was the mean age and 24.12±9.08 years was the mean age in open appendectomy (OA) group. There were 70 men and 40 women in the LA group, and 50 men and 60 women in the OA group. The LA group has M:F ratio of 1.9: 1 in the and 1: 1.3 in the OA group. While 108 patients had no complications and surgical site infection were noticed in two patients only in the LA group, 98 patients in the OA group recovered and surgical site infection were seen in 12 patients. Conclusion: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safer and better choice than open appendectomy which decreases postoperative complications significantly such as wound infections. Keywords: Open appendectomy, Laparoscopic appendectomy, Acute appendicitis and Surgical site infection.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".