Factors affecting hospital length of stay following pelvic exenteration surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total pelvic exenteration are performed in patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignances. Many patients have prolong hospital length of stay (LOS), but risk factors are not clearly identified. METHODS: From 2002 through 2012, 100 consecutive patients undergoing pelvic exenteration were retrospectively reviewed. A general linear model was used to examine risk factors for prolonged hospital LOS. RESULTS: Among the 100 patients, 51 had gastrointestinal cancer, 14 had genitourinary cancer, 31 had gynecologic cancer, and 4 had sarcoma. Perioperative complications included infection (n = 44), anastomotic leak/fistula (n = 6), wound or flap dehiscence (n = 11), and ileus or bowel obstruction (n = 30). The median (Interquartile range (IQR)) hospital LOS was 15 days (10-21.5 days). On multivariate regression analysis, hospital LOS was significantly prolonged by underweight status, genitourinary cancer or sarcoma diagnosis, ≥2 infections, anastomotic leak/fistula, requiring rehabilitation consult and admission, and ≥2 consultations (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing pelvic exenteration, prolonged hospital LOS is associated with underweight status, genitourinary cancer or sarcoma diagnosis, more than one infection, anastomotic leak/fistula, requiring rehabilitation consult and admission, and more than one consultation. Further study is needed to assess whether minimizing these risk factors can improve hospital LOS in these patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".