Infectious complications following laparoscopic appendectomy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A meta-analysis of the literature suggests there is an increased rate of intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) compared with open appendectomy (OA). METHODS: To analyze the infectious complications of LA at one tertiary care centre, we completed a retrospective chart review for all patients undergoing LA for acute appendicitis from 1995 to 2002. RESULTS: We used established exclusion criteria to identify 175 patients with a mean age of 37.6 (standard deviation [SD] 14.5) years (95 male, 80 female). The mean operating time was 61.9 (SD 22.5) minutes. Excluding conversions to OA (14/175, 8%), operating time was 59.9 (SD 20.5) minutes. On surgical assessment, 143 patients had acute nonperforated appendicitis (17 perforated, 15 gangrenous). However, on histopathology assessment, 13 cases of normal appendix were identified (13/175, 7.4%). The overall median length of stay was 2.0 days. Three patients had significant postoperative infectious complications, including 1 wound infection and 2 cases of intra-abdominal abscesses. All abscesses were managed successfully with percutaneous drainage. An analysis of perioperative factors that might have contributed to the infectious complications revealed that each case of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess occurred in patients with gangrenous appendicitis and when extensive irrigation was used during LA. CONCLUSIONS: An institutional review demonstrates outcomes comparable with the Cochrane systematic review of the published literature. Technical issues that may impact on intra-abdominal abscess formation after LA include aggressive manipulation of the infected appendix and increased use of irrigation fluid, possibly producing greater contamination of the peritoneal cavity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".