Negative appendicectomy and perforation rates in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for suspected appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use of imaging technologies including ultrasonography and computed tomography, rates of negative appendicectomy and perforated appendicitis remain high. This trend analysis examined whether rates of negative appendicectomy and perforated appendicitis have decreased over time, and sought to evaluate clinical predictors associated with negative appendicectomy and perforated appendicitis. METHODS: This analysis was based on the prospective database of the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery (SALTS). All patients aged 12 years and over undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy between 1995 and 2006 were included. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 7964 patients underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy, of whom 7452 (93.6 per cent) had acute appendicitis and 512 (6.4 per cent) had a macroscopically normal appendix. Perforation occurred in 1230 (16.5 per cent) of those with appendicitis. In multivariable analysis, younger age (12-18 years), female sex, absence of local or generalized peritonitis and an early point during the study period were significant predictors of negative appendicectomy. For perforated appendicitis, significant predictors included age over 36 years, presence of localized or generalized peritonitis, and high American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. The rate of negative appendicectomy decreased from 12.7 per cent in 1995 to 2.8 per cent in 2006, there being a significant reduction in both unadjusted and risk-adjusted analyses (P < 0.001 for trend). In adjusted analyses, the rate of perforated appendicitis did not increase significantly over time. CONCLUSION: The rate of negative appendicectomy decreased over time, without an accompanying increase in perforated appendicitis. The risk of having a negative appendicectomy was highest in girls aged 12-18 years without local or generalized peritonitis during the early study period, whereas perforation was associated with age over 36 years, presence of localized or generalized peritonitis, and greater co-morbidity. Copyright © 2011 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".