MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377004108 · doi:10.51642/ppmj.v33i03.481

COMPARISON OF LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS OPEN RIGHT HEMICOLECTOMY IN PATIENTS OF ASCENDING COLON TUMOR

2022· article· en· W4377004108 on OpenAlex
Muhammad Muneeb Saqlain Bajwa, Bilal Afsar, Muhammad Ayaz, Afsar Ali Bhatti

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Postgraduate Medical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryLaparoscopyColorectal cancerLaparoscopic surgeryAnastomosisColorectal surgeryRandomized controlled trialRectumOpen surgeryAscending colonAbdominal surgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In addition to rectum, ascending colon and caecum can also develop cancer. Right hemicolectomy is the operation of choice for later two. Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy is reported to have advantages of minimal invasive surgery, but some contradictory results were found. So the purpose of this study is the quest of truth.
 Objective: To compare the outcome of Laparoscopic and Open Right Hemicolectomy in patients of ascending colon tumors.
 Methods: This randomized Controlled Trial was conducted at Surgical Unit II, LGH, Lahore for 12 months from 2020-2021. Then 90 patients (45 in each group) were enrolled based on inclusion criteria. In group A, laparoscopic and in group B, open method was performed. Duration of surgery, hospital stay, wound complications and anastomotic leakage were noted. Data was recorded on proforma and analyzed in SPSS Vr. 25.0. Both groups were compared for duration of surgery and hospital stay by using independent samples t-test and for wound complication and anastomotic leakage by using chi-square test. P-value<0.05 was taken as significant.
 Results: The mean age of patients was 52.31±13.30 yrs in laparoscopic and 51.18±10.74 years in open surgery. In laparoscopy group, male:female ratio was 1:1 and in open surgery group it was 1:2. In laparoscopy mean duration of surgery was 125.18±19.66 minutes while in open group it was 134.20±25.07 minutes. (p-value >0.05). In laparoscopy mean duration of hospital stay was 6.47±1.24 days and in open surgery it was 7.96±1.35 days (p-value <0.05). In laparoscopy group, wound complication occurred in 4 (8.9%) patients and in open surgery group, wound complication occurred in 7 (15.6%) patients (p-value >0.05). In laparoscopy group no anastomotic leak occurred i.e. 0 (0.0%) patients, but in open surgery group, anastomotic leak occurred in 3 (6.7%) patients (p-value >0.05). In laparoscopy group, pain was mild in 41 (91.1%) cases while moderate in 4 (8.9%) cases and no patients had severe or excruciating pain. In open surgery group, pain was mild in 32 (71.1%) cases while moderate in 10 (22.2%) cases and 3 (6.7%) patients had severe pain but no patient had excruciating pain. The difference was significant (p-value <0.05).
 Conclusion: Thus laparoscopic method has advantages in terms of reduced hospital stay, less postoperative pain, wound complications and anastomotic leakage after surgery as compared to open surgical method.
 Key words: Laparoscopic surgery, Open surgery, Right Hemicolectomy, ascending colon tumor, anastomotic leak, wound complication, stapling device.
 

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it