MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management of spontaneous and iatrogenic retroperitoneal haemorrhage: conservative management, endovascular intervention or open surgery?

2007· review· en· W2113955870 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCase Reports on Hematomas
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryInterventional radiologyRetroperitoneal hemorrhageResuscitationRetroperitoneal spaceRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Retroperitoneal haematoma is a rare clinical entity with variable aetiology, which is increasing in incidence mainly due to complications related to interventional procedures. There is no general consensus as to the best management plan for patients with retroperitoneal haematoma. METHODS: A literature review was undertaken using MEDLINE, all relevant papers on retroperitoneal haemorrhage or haematoma were used. RESULTS: The diagnosis is often delayed as symptoms are nonspecific. Retroperitoneal haematoma should be suspected in patients with significant groin, flank, abdominal, back pain or haemodynamic instability following an interventional procedure. Spontaneous haemorrhage usually occurs in patients who are anticoagulated. Multi-slice CT and arteriography are important for diagnosis. Most haemodynamically stable patients can be managed with fluid resuscitation, correction of coagulopathy and blood transfusion. Endovascular treatment involving selective intra-arterial embolisation or the deployment of stent-grafts over the punctured vessel is attaining an increasingly important role. Open repair of retroperitoneal bleeding vessels should be reserved for cases when there is failure of conservative or endovascular measures to control the bleeding. Open repair is also required if endovascular facilities or expertise is unavailable and in cases where the patient is unstable. If treated inappropriately, the mortality of patients with retroperitoneal haematoma remains high. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of level I evidence for the best management plans for retroperitoneal haematoma, and evidence is based on small cohort series or isolated case reports. Conservative management should only be reserved for patients who are stable. Interventional radiology with intra-arterial embolisation or stent-grafting is the treatment of choice. Open surgery is now rarely required.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.269
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it