Surgical management of symptomatic hydatid liver disease: experience from a Western centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hydatid liver cysts are rare in North America. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal surgical management for hydatid liver cysts treated outside endemic areas. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of consecutive patients who underwent management of hydatid liver cysts. Radical liver resections were compared with other types of procedures. Clinical presentation, investigations, perioperative outcomes and longterm follow-up were evaluated. We evaluated disease recurrence using the Kaplan- Meier method. RESULTS: Forty patients underwent surgery for hydatid liver cysts. Most patients had single (68%) right-sided (46%) cysts with a median size of 10 cm. Most (83%) underwent liver resection with or without drainage/marsupialization. Radical liver resection was carried out in 60% (19 major, 5 minor). Additional procedures were required in 50% (biliary fistulization 30%, diaphragmatic fistulization 20% or paracaval location/ fusion 8%). Postoperative complications occurred in 48%. The median follow-up was 39 months. The 3-year recurrence-free survival was significantly different between patients who had radical resection and those who had other procedures (100% v. 71%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The surgical management of hydatid liver cysts in North America remains rare and challenging and is frequently associated with fistulizing complications. Excellent long-term outcomes are best achieved using principles of radical liver resection that are familiar to North American 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".