Timing of surgery and the risk of complications in patients with acute appendicitis: A population-level case-crossover study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delays in surgery for patients with acute appendicitis may increase the risk of perforation and complications. These risks must be balanced with the theoretical risk of nighttime operations. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of (i) time of day of surgery and (ii) time between triage presentation and surgery, on surgical complications in patient undergoing appendectomy for appendicitis. METHODS: Population level data from Ontario from 2009 to 2015 was used to conduct this retrospective cohort study. The primary exposure was (i) time of day of surgery and (ii) time between triage and surgery. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of perioperative complications. Conditional logistic regression adjusted for patient factors was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) between the exposure and complications. RESULTS: Twelve thousand nine hundred thirty-seven matched pairs (N = 25,874) of adult patients were included. Compared to day operations, the odds of complications were lower during the evening (OR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-0.96) and no different at night (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.04). The odds of complications were higher in patients who waited longer than 24 hours for surgery compared with those who waited less than 6 hours (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43) with no increased risk in those who waited 6 hours to 12 hours or 12 hours to 24 hours. CONCLUSION: This large population study is the first to assess surgical risks using a case-crossover design to account for the surgeon as a potential confounder. Nighttime surgery and delaying surgery up to 24 hours were not associated increased risks of complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".