Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Nonsurgically Managed Uncomplicated Appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging literature has supported the safety of nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with emergent, uncomplicated appendicitis were identified by appropriate ICD-9 diagnosis codes in the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from 1997 to 2008. Rates of treatment failure, recurrence, and perforation after nonsurgical management were calculated. Factors associated with treatment failure, recurrence, and perforation were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Mortality, length of stay, and total charges were compared between treatment cohorts using matched propensity score analysis. RESULTS: Of 231,678 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, the majority (98.5%) were managed operatively. Of the 3,236 nonsurgically managed patients who survived to discharge without an interval appendectomy, 5.9% and 4.4% experienced treatment failure or recurrence, respectively, during a median follow-up of more than 7 years. There were no mortalities associated with treatment failure or recurrence. The risk of perforation after discharge was approximately 3%. Using multivariable analysis, race and age were significantly associated with the odds of treatment failure. Sex, age, and hospital teaching status were significantly associated with the odds of recurrence. Age and hospital teaching status were significantly associated with the odds of perforation. Matched propensity score analysis indicated that after risk adjustment, mortality rates (0.1% vs 0.3%; p = 0.65) and total charges ($23,243 vs $24,793; p = 0.70) were not statistically different between operative and nonoperative patients; however, length of stay was significantly longer in the nonoperative treatment group (2.1 days vs 3.2 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis can be safe and prompts additional investigations. Comparative effectiveness research using prospective randomized studies can be particularly useful.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".