Randomized controlled trial to investigate the impact of anticoagulation on the incidence of splenic or portal vein thrombosis after laparoscopic splenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Splenic and portal vein thrombosis (SPVT) is a potentially life-threatening complication of splenectomy. There is a paucity of studies examining the role of prophylactic pre- and postoperative anticoagulation in the prevention of this complication. We designed a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) to more rigorously address the impact of prophylactic anticoagulation on the incidence of asymptomatic or symptomatic SPVT, detected on Doppler ultrasound, after laparoscopic splenectomy. METHODS: This 2-centre, phase II, prospective, open-label, parallel-assignment RCT compared no postoperative anticoagulation to a regimen of 40 mg of enoxaparin subcutaneously once daily for 21 days. All patients underwent Doppler ultrasonography of the splenoportal system preoperatively and again 14-28 days after surgery to screen for nonocclusive or occlusive thrombosis. RESULTS: From November 2006 to November 2008, 35 patients were enrolled in the RCT. Four patients withdrew, 1 required conversion to an open procedure and 1 died at 3 months (the cause of death was not related to the study). Of the 29 patients remaining, 15 were randomly assigned to the anticoagulation group and 14 to the nonanticoagulation group. One (3.4%) patient in the treatment group experienced portal thrombosis. Rates of postoperative bleeding were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This RCT of anticoagulation found a low overall risk of SPVT after laparoscopic splenectomy; however, this is an underpowered study, and further multicentred clinical trials are needed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".