The Comparative Study of Abdominal Pain Characteristics after Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in Patients with Morbid Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate and compare the characteristics of abdominal pain after bariatric surgery with two techniques of Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (LOAGB) and Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) in patients with morbid obesity. Methods: This prospective descriptive-analytical study was conducted on 114 patients who were candidates for bariatric surgery. Patients were entered to study in one of two groups of LOAGB and LRYGB by convenient and continuous sampling. The characteristics of abdominal pain of patients were investigated and compared at certain periods (24 and 48 hours and 10, 20, 30, and 90 days after surgery) using McGill Pain Questionnaire. Findings: The frequency of severe abdominal pain in the LOAGB group within 48 hours after surgery was significantly higher than the LRYGB group (P < 0.05). The highest abdominal pain distribution at the first 5 time periods in the two groups was in the left lower quadrant of the abdomen. The frequency of description of ambiguous pain within 48 hours and 10 days in the LOAGB group was significantly higher than LRYGB. The frequency of pattern of periodical (intermittent) pain at the periods of 48 hours and 10 and 20 days after surgery in the LOAGB group was significantly higher than LRYGB. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that there was no significant difference in the frequency of abdominal pain and its distribution between LOAGB and LRYGB groups. However, the definitive decision to choose a bariatric surgery technique for lower abdominal pain requires further study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".