Primary resection anastomosis versus Hartmann’s procedure in Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical management of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis utilizes either Hartmann’s procedure (HP) or primary resection anastomosis (PRA) with or without fecal diversion. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine which of the two procedures has a more favorable outcome. A systematic review of the existing literature was performed using the PRISMA guidelines. A meta-analysis was carried out using a Mantel-Haenszel, random effects model, and forest plots were generated. The Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scoring tools were used to assess the included studies. A total of 25 studies involving 3546 patients were included in this study. The overall mortality in the HP group was 10.8% across the observational studies and 9.4% in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The mortality rate in the PRA group was lower than that in the HP group, at 8.2% in the observational studies and 4.3% in the RCTs. A comparison of PRA vs HP demonstrated a 40% lower mortality rate in the PRA group than in the HP (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38–0.95, p = 0.03) when analyzing the observational studies. However, meta-analysis of the three RCTs did not demonstrate any difference in mortality, (OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.14–1.34, p = 0.15). Wound infection rates between the two groups were comparable (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.20–2.78, p = 0.67). Analysis of observational studies suggests that PRA may be associated with a lower overall mortality. There were no differences in wound infection rates. Based on the current evidence, both surgical strategies appear to be acceptable.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".