MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prospective Evaluation of Vacuum-Assisted Closure in Abdominal Compartment Syndrome and Severe Abdominal Sepsis

2007· article· en· W2125322894 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Pérez, Stefan Wildi, Nicolas Demartines, Matthias Bramkamp, Christian Koehler, Pierre‐Alain Clavien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAbdominal compartment syndromeLaparotomyAbdomenSurgeryProspective cohort studySepsisDamage control surgeryResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Open abdomen treatment because of severe abdominal sepsis and abdominal compartment syndrome remains a difficult task. Different surgical techniques are available and are often used according to the surgeon's personal experience. Recently, the abdominal vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) system has been introduced, providing a new possibility to treat an open abdomen. In this study, we evaluate the role of this treatment option. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective observational cohort study includes 37 consecutive patients who were temporarily treated with VAC for severe abdominal sepsis or abdominal compartment syndrome, or both. Patients with abdominal trauma were excluded from the study. Thirty-seven patients undergoing major elective laparotomy and primary abdominal closure served as control group. Primary end points were fascial closure rate, physicoemotional recovery, and appearance outcomes 1 year after closure. Secondary end points included mortality, duration of open abdomen, length of ICU stay, and hospitalization time. RESULTS: Abdomens were left open for 23 days (range 3 to 122 days) with 3.8 dressing changes (range 1 to 22) per patient. Abdominal closure was achieved in 70% (n = 26), with no marked relation to duration of open abdomen treatment (p > 0.05). After 3 months, patients with VAC treatment recovered to a physical and mental health status similar to patients in the control group (p > 0.05). This status remained stable until the end of the study. Aesthetic outcomes (according to the Vancouver Scar Scale) were considerably poorer in the VAC group compared with controls (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of laparostomy with VAC for abdominal sepsis and abdominal compartment syndrome results in a high rate of successful abdominal closure. In addition, patients recover more rapidly, although hypertrophic scars might interfere with body perception. We recommend abdominal VAC system as first option if open abdomen treatment is indicated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations186
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207