Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. May 16, 2015; 7(5): 540-546
Published online May 16, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i5.540
Published online May 16, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i5.540
X-Conemethod(n = 100) (No.1 group) | Three-device method(n = 100)(No.2 group) | Conventional method(n = 100)(No.3 group) | P values | Statistical methodsand values | |
Pain score1 | One-Way ANOVA | ||||
1 d after surgery | 3.4 ± 1.2 | 3.6 ± 1.2 | 4.2 ± 1.1 | 0 G1 vs G2 0.296 G1 vs G3 0.000 G2 vs G3 0.005 | F = 11.16 |
2 d after surgery | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 3.0 ± 1.0 | 3.2 ± 1.0 | 0.002 G1 vs G2 0.155 G1 vs G3 0.001 G2 vs G3 0.204 | F = 6.34 |
7 d after surgery | 2.2 ± 0.6 | 2.0 ± 0.6 | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 0.014 G1 vs G2 0.252 G1 vs G3 0.365 G2 vs G3 0.010 | F = 4.35 |
1 mo after surgery | 1.6 ± 0.4 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.5 | 0 G1 vs G2 0.123 G1 vs G3 0.048 G2 vs G3 0.000 | F = 9.435 |
Cosmetic score2 | |||||
1 wk after surgery | 8 ± 0.7 | 8 ± 0.5 | 6 ± 0.4 | 0 G1 vs G2 0.999 G1 vs G3 0.000 G2 vs G3 0.000 | F = 423.61 |
2 wk after surgery | 8 ± 0.8 | 8 ± 0.6 | 7 ± 0.3 | 0 G1 vs G2 0.966 G1 vs G3 0.000 G2 vs G3 0.000 | F = 93.67 |
1 mo after surgery | 9 ± 0.2 | 9 ± 0.3 | 8 ± 0.5 | 0 G1 vs G2 0.814 G1 vs G3 0.000 G2 vs G3 0.000 | F = 308.9 |
- Citation: He GL, Jiang ZS, Cheng Y, Lai QB, Zhou CJ, Liu HY, Gao Y, Pan MX, Jian ZX. Tripartite comparison of single-incision and conventional laparoscopy in cholecystectomy: A multicenter trial. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7(5): 540-546
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v7/i5/540.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v7.i5.540