Treatment of Liver Trauma: Operative or Conservative Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The liver is one of the most frequently damaged organs when abdominal trauma occurs. Currently, a conservative management constitutes the treatment of choice in patients with hemodynamic stability. The aim of this study is to evaluate the results of an operative and conservative management of 143 patients with liver injury treated in a single institution. METHODS: A retrospective study of the patients admitted with the diagnosis of liver trauma was performed from 1992-2008. The patients were classified according to the intention to treatment: Group I, operative management; Group II, conservative management. Variables analyzed included demographic data, injury classification, associated lesions, surgical treatment, transfusions, morbi-mortality, and hospital stay. We established two periods (1992-1999; 2000-2008) in order to compare diagnosis and management. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were analyzed. Thirty-one percent correspond to severe injuries. Conservative treatment was followed in 60.8 % with surgery undertaken in 14.9 % of patients from this group due to failure of conservative treatment. Immediate surgery was carried out in 38.2 %. Total mortality was 14 %. Morbidity (35.7-38.5 %) in the group of immediate surgery and failure of conservative management is similar, but not in mortality (28.6-15.4 %). In the second group (2000-2008) there are more patients with conservative treatment, with a low percentage of failure of this treatment and morbi-mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative treatment is an adequate treatment in a great number of patients. Failure of conservative treatment did not show a higher incidence of complications or mortality but it should be performed in centers with experienced surgeons.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".