Bowel Obstruction Following Appendectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Appendicitis is a common problem that is typically treated with an appendectomy. Following abdominal surgery, adhesions may form and may cause a subsequent small bowel obstruction (SBO). The purpose of our study was to determine the rate of post-appendectomy SBO in an adult population, and to observe any difference in SBO rates between open versus laparoscopic appendectomies. METHODS: All patients who underwent an appendectomy at an adult hospital in the Calgary Health Region between 1999 and 2002 were identified by using the administrative discharge database. Pathology and operative technique (laparoscopic, McBurney incision, midline laparotomy) were reviewed. Using those regional health numbers, any further admissions with a diagnostic code for bowel obstruction were identified. Medical charts (n = 1777) were reviewed to confirm the rate of post-appendectomy SBO. A logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors of post-appendectomy SBO and expressed as odds ratios (95% confidence interval). RESULTS: The overall SBO rate was 2.8% over an average 4.1-year follow-up period. The risk factors for developing SBO following appendectomy for appendicitis included, perforated appendicitis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-6.6), and midline incisions (OR = 5.4, 95% CI: 2.8-10.4). Those with pathology of cancer or chronic appendicitis conferred the greatest overall risk of SBO (OR = 7.4, 95% CI: 2.7-20.3). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of SBO following appendectomy in adults was 2.8%, or 0.0069 cases per person-year. The greatest risk factors for developing SBO were midline incision and nonappendicitis pathology. There is no statistically significant difference in SBO rates following laparoscopic appendectomy compared with open approaches.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".