Laparoscopic treatment of appendiceal peritonitis without drainage in children—A prospective randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Routine placement of a drain for complicated appendicitis was one of the approaches to reduce postoperative complication. In a resource-limited hospital where radiologist-directed monitoring is not feasible, drainage is beneficial for complication follow-up. Nevertheless, emerging studies indicated drainage did not significantly impact on amelioration of patients’ outcomes. This study aimed to compare the postoperative results of pediatric patients with or without drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis at a rural children's hospital. We performed a quasi-randomized recruitment of pediatric patients who underwent laparoscopic treatment for complicated appendicitis with or without drainage. Several parameters, including operative time, lengths of stay, complication rate, duration of antibiotic administration, and hospital charges were monitored for assessment. From 05/2020 to 05/2022, there were 184 cases of recruited pediatric patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, with 91 patients in drain-placing group (49.5%). Demographic baseline and pre-surgery symptoms did not indicate any differences between two groups. Data of postoperative complications including intra-abdominal abscesses and wound infections showed no significance in discrepancy. Notably, patients of drainage group experienced longer length of stay than non-drainage group, with average of 8.5 days and 7.5 days, respectively (p<0.0001). Additionally, the significantly higher number of hospital charges was observed in the those with peritoneal drain (p<0.0001). Our records showed that routine placement of a peritoneal drain after laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients with complicated appendicitis did not impact on the outcomes, but prolonged hospital stay and caused more hospital charges.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".