Clinical Outcome in Acute Small Bowel Obstruction after Surgical or Conservative Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is characterized by a high rate of recurrence. In the present study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of patients managed either by conservative treatment or surgical operation for an episode of SBO. METHODS: The outcomes of all patients hospitalized at a single center for acute SBO between 2004 and 2007 were assessed. The occurrence of recurrent hospitalization, surgery, SBO symptoms at home, and mortality was determined. RESULTS: Among 221 patients admitted with SBO, 136 underwent a surgical procedure (surgical group) and 85 were managed conservatively (conservative group). Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. The median follow-up time (interquartile range) was 4.7 (3.7-5.8) years. Nineteen patients (14.0 %) of the surgical group were hospitalized for recurrent SBO versus 25 (29.4 %) of the conservative group [hazard ratio (HR), 0.5; 95 % CI, 0.3-0.9]. The need for a surgical management of a new SBO episode was similar between the two groups, ten patients (7.4 %) in the surgical group and six patients (7.1 %) in the conservative group (HR, 1.1; 95 % CI, 0.4-3.1). Five-year mortality from the date of hospital discharge was not significantly different between the two groups (age- and sex-adjusted HR, 1.1; 95 % CI, 0.6-2.1). A follow-up evaluation was obtained for 130 patients. Among them, 24 patients (34.8 %) of the surgical group and 35 patients (57.4 %) of the conservative group had recurrent SBO symptoms (odds ratio, 0.4; 95 % CI, 0.2-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence of SBO symptoms and new hospitalizations were significantly lower after surgical management of SBO compared with conservative treatment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".