FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2900565920> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2900565920 abstract "INTRODUCTION: With new advances in the field of surgery, there have been made many amendments in the methods of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Since the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the four port technique has been a standard option for surgeons but for the past few years the role of the fourth trocar has been debated and three port techniques is sought to take its place. OBJECTIVE: This study is an experimental prospective study which has been carried out to compare and contrast four port and three port techniques in terms of patient outcomes such as pain, nausea, satisfaction, hospital stay and complications rate. METHODOLOGY: Data was collected from seventy seven patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Convenient sampling was used and sample was stratified into two age groups. Postoperative pain, nausea, analgesic requirements and the number of days of hospital stay was assessed amongst the patient using the visual analogue scale. Post-OP complications were also assessed. RESULTS: “Young adults” (20-44 years) were 40 in number while 30 patients fell under the “Older adults” group (45 years and above). In “younger adults” the pain score was 4.29 (SD: ± 1.62) for three port and 5.78 (SD: ± 1.21) for four port, mean nausea score was less for four port i.e. 1.33 (SD: ± 2.17) than for three port 2.32 (SD: ± 2.24), Mean postoperative stay for four port 2.00 days (SD: ± 0 .71) was slightly more than three port 1.58 days (SD: ± 0.76). In the older age groups the mean pain scores were : 3.33 (SD: ± 1.92) and 5.13 (SD: ± 1.46) for three and four port techniques respectively, mean nausea score amongst the old patients was not much different for three port and four port i.e. 1.40 (SD: ±1.88) and 1.27 (SD: ±2.09), patient satisfaction for three port 9.33 (SD: ± 0.97) was a little higher than four port 8.00 (SD: ± 1.22), mean postoperative stay for 3 port patients was 1.2 days (SD: ± 0.41) and for the 4 port patients was 1.8 days (SD: ± 0.56). CONCLUSION: Three-port had a significantly better outcome than four-port technique in terms of post surgical pain, hospital stay and patient satisfaction. There was no significant difference in the complications rate and nausea. KEY WORDS: Laproscopy, cholecyctectomy, cholecystitis, biliary colic, cholelithiasis" @default.
• W2900565920 created "2018-11-29" @default.
• W2900565920 creator A5058596730 @default.
• W2900565920 date "2018-07-19" @default.
• W2900565920 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2900565920 title "A Comparison of Three Port and Four Port laparoscopic Cholecystectomy" @default.
• W2900565920 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2900565920 type Work @default.
• W2900565920 sameAs 2900565920 @default.
• W2900565920 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2900565920 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2900565920 hasAuthorship W2900565920A5058596730 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C119599485 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C14184104 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C2776641081 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C2780580376 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C2780852908 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C2987287001 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C32802771 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C119599485 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C127413603 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C141071460 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C14184104 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C2776641081 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C2780580376 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C2780852908 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C2987287001 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C32802771 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C42219234 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C61434518 @default.
• W2900565920 hasConceptScore W2900565920C71924100 @default.
• W2900565920 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2900565920 hasLocation W29005659201 @default.
• W2900565920 hasOpenAccess W2900565920 @default.
• W2900565920 hasPrimaryLocation W29005659201 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W105109294 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2020657731 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2029123713 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2074592118 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2079106572 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2117045386 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2184383959 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2343747297 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2356224758 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2371788950 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2612266732 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2781876540 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2791947774 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2893745028 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2966688286 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W3080132338 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W3110887222 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2510703892 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W2945986093 @default.
• W2900565920 hasRelatedWork W3029098832 @default.
• W2900565920 hasVolume "3" @default.
• W2900565920 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2900565920 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2900565920 magId "2900565920" @default.
• W2900565920 workType "article" @default.