MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413735600 · doi:10.1186/s12893-025-03124-z

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy with inflexible laparoscopic instruments and laparoscopy: a single-center experience of 533 cases

2025· article· en· W4413735600 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaparoscopyCholecystectomySurgerySingle CenterLaparoscopic cholecystectomyGeneral surgeryEndoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been widely performed as the gold standard for BGDs. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) was considered as an option for minimizing surgical injuries and improving outcomes. However, the benefit of this novel technique, especially with conventional and inflexible instruments and laparoscopy, is still controversial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 958 consecutive cases (533 SILC vs. 425 CLC) from January 2023 to March 2024. SILC was performed via a single transumbilical incision with straight and inflexible instruments whereas CLC with traditional three-port strategy. Information of patients' demographic characteristics and pathological diagnoses was collected and analyzed. Comparative outcomes assessment included validated measures: SF-36 QoL indices, VAS pain scores, Vancouver Scar Scale assessments, hospitalization duration, and Clavien-Dindo complication grading. RESULTS: Cases from two groups showed similar demographic characteristics and pathological diagnoses. They also had comparable surgical time, estimated intraoperative blood loss and hospital costs. Sixteen cases required supplementary trocars for technical challenges. The SILC group exhibited superior scar satisfaction, though no significant intergroup differences existed in hospitalization duration, postoperative pain scores, or wound infection rates. Longitudinal analysis revealed reduced chronic pain and diarrhea incidence in SILC patients. Six-month postoperative SF-36 assessments showed significant improvements in SILC recipients for Bodily Pain, Vitality, and Role-Emotional domains. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated SILC with conventional and inflexible instruments to be safe and feasible. SILC was found to be non-inferior to CLC. This technique demonstrated certain advantages, particularly in improving patient satisfaction with wound pain and appearance, while maintaining comparable surgical outcomes, hospital stay duration, and postoperative complication rates to those of CLC.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.259 · 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