Outcome of Patients on Renal Replacement Therapy after Colorectal Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients on renal replacement therapy are reported to have a high complication rate after abdominal surgery, the result of uremia and immunosuppression. A review of this group of patients undergoing colorectal surgery was undertaken. METHODS: Seventy-three separate colorectal operations were performed for 44 patients. Thirty-eight patients were on dialysis and 35 had a renal transplant. Data (coexisting disease, preoperative blood results, operative details, complications, and colorectal POSSUM score) were completed for each surgical event. RESULTS: Forty-two elective and 31 emergency procedures were performed. Infective complications were common (overall 60 percent). There were two anastomotic leaks in the elective group, but five leaks from seven emergency anastomoses. Stomas were frequently raised. Ninety percent of patients who survived and had a defunctioning stoma underwent a successful reversal. The overall major complication rate after elective and emergency surgery was 19 and 81 percent, respectively, and mortality was 5 and 26 percent, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Renal patients have a high rate of complications after colorectal surgery, and emergency surgery has a significant risk of anastomotic leak. Primary anastomosis should be avoided in all patients undergoing emergency intestinal resections. Subsequent surgery to restore intestinal continuity is possible in 90 percent of patients with far fewer complications.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".