MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2007· article· en· W2125322894 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
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