Comparison of gallbladder extraction via the subxiphoid port and the supraumbilical port during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most frequent postoperative complaint. To date, gallbladder extraction via the subxiphoid port (SXP) versus the supraumbilical port (SUP) is still controversial. Thus, the authors performed this randomized controlled trial to compare postoperative pain between the SXP and SUP for LC. METHOD: From June 2021 to June 2023, patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to two groups. The perioperative data of both groups were recorded and compared. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients were enrolled in the analysis. There were 126 in the SXP group and 127 in the SUP group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the duration of gallbladder extraction, whether the incision was extended, the least rate of pain, the average rate of pain, the right-now rate of pain, postoperative pain on the 5th, 7th, and 14th days, postoperative complications and Vancouver Scar scale. However, the SUP group had a lower the worst rate of pain (4.24±2.45 vs. 4.91±2.45, P=0.031) and 3 days of pain (3.35±1.57 vs. 3.75±1.52, P=0.045) than did the SXP group. The influence of pain on general activity (4.51±2.90 vs. 3.76±2.92, P=0.041), mood (3.62±2.66 vs. 2.92±2.36, P=0.028), walking ability (4.40±3.01 vs. 3.66±2.76, P=0.044), and enjoyment of life (3.19±2.68 vs. 2.32±2.34, P=0.007) in the SXP was more severe than that in the SUP. CONCLUSION: The extraction of the gallbladder via the SUP is superior to that via the SXP because the early postoperative 24 h pain and pain on the third day are mild and do not increase the duration of gallbladder extraction or the risk of infection or hernia.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".