Postoperative recurrence of cystic hydatidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical management is the basic treatment for hydatid disease. Overall, the recurrence rate appears to be high (4.6%-22.0%). The purpose of this study was to report our results in the management of recurrent hydatid disease, evaluating the methods for identifying recurrence, prognostic factors and therapeutic options. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent surgery for cystic hydatidosis between 1970 and 2003. RESULTS: Of the 584 patients who underwent surgery during our study period, follow-up was complete for 484 (82.8%). Cysts recurred in 51 patients (8.7%). Abdominal ultrasonography and computed tomography appeared to be efficient for diagnosing recurrence. The 2 most important determinants for recurrence were minute spillage of the hydatid cyst and inadequate treatment owing to missing cysts or incomplete pericystectomy. All but 2 recurrences required surgery. There were 14 postoperative complications for a rate of 27.0%. Thirteen re-recurrences were observed in the follow-up of these patients and also required surgery. CONCLUSION: Avoidance of minute spillage of cyst contents and cautious removal of the parasite with as much of the pericyst as possible are fundamental objectives of primary-hydatid surgery. Conservative surgery (removal of the cyst contents plus partial pericystectomy with drainage when necessary) plus chemotherapy and local sterilization is suggested for both primary and secondary operations and appears to achieve satisfactory longterm results. Radical surgery (resection, cystopericystectomy) is preferred only in select patients.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".