Open appendectomy for pediatric ruptured appendicitis: a historical clinical review of the prophylaxis of wound infection and postoperative intra-abdominal abscess
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a 3-decade clinical review of prophylaxis for wound infection and postoperative intra-abdominal abscess after open appendectomy for pediatric ruptured appendicitis. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of patients with ruptured appendicitis who underwent open appendectomy performed by the same pediatric surgeon at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, between 1969 and 2003, inclusive. We evaluated 3 types of prophylaxis: subcutaneous (SC) antibiotic powder, peritoneal wound drain and intravenous (IV) antibiotics. We divided the sample into 4 treatment groups: peritoneal wound drain alone (group 1); peritoneal wound drain, SC antibiotic powder and IV antibiotics (group 2); SC antibiotic powder and IV antibiotics (group 3); and IV antibiotics alone (group 4). We used the χ(2) test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: There were 496 patients: 348 (70%) boys and 148 (30%) girls, with a mean age of 7 (range newborn to 17) years. There were 90 (18%) wound infections. Compared with the current standard of practice, IV antibiotics alone (group 4), peritoneal wound drain (group 1) was associated with the lowest number of wound infections (7 [7%], p = 0.023). There were 43 (9%) postoperative intra-abdominal abscesses. Compared with IV antibiotics alone, SC antibiotic powder with IV antibiotics (group 3) was associated with the lowest number of postoperative intra-abdominal abscesses (14 [6%], p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Over a 35-year period of open appendectomy for pediatric ruptured appendicitis, wound infection was least frequent in patients who received prophylactic peritoneal wound drain, and postoperative intra-abdominal abscess was least frequent in those who received prophylactic SC antibiotic powder and IV antibiotics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".