Open abdomen with negative pressure device vs primary abdominal closure for the management of surgical abdominal sepsis: a retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open abdomen with temporary abdominal closure remains a controversial management strategy for surgical abdominal sepsis compared with primary abdominal closure (PAC) and on-demand laparotomy. The primary objective was to compare mortality between PAC and open abdomen with vacuum assisted closure (VAC). METHODS: Retrospective review of a tertiary center intensive care unit database (2006 to 2010) including suspected/diagnosed severe abdominal sepsis/septic shock requiring source control laparotomy. Groups were categorized according to closure method at index source control laparotomy. APACHE-IV was used as a measure of disease severity. RESULTS: Of 211 patients, 75 PAC and 136 VAC cases were included. Controlling for disease severity, adjusted odds ratio of mortality for VAC was .41 95% confidence interval (.21, .81; P = .01) compared with PAC. PAC and VAC APACHE-1V predicted mortality rate were both 45%. VAC mortality was lower than PAC (22.8% vs 38.6%; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: Open abdomen with VAC is associated with significantly improved survival compared with PAC in abdominal sepsis requiring laparotomy.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".