Analysis of Outcomes Using Intraoperative Irrigation and Drainage for Complicated Appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The practice of irrigation and/or intraoperative peritoneal drain placement during an appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is currently controversial. This study was aimed at delineating the relationship between the practice of intraoperative drain placement and/or irrigation and patient outcomes for complicated appendicitis cases. Methods: A retrospective study of patients presenting with acute complicated appendicitis, which was defined as perforated or gangrenous, was conducted (n = 225). The primary outcome was defined as the presence of postoperative abscess or sepsis, while the secondary outcome measured was length of hospital stay. Results: Patients who received intraoperative drain placement had an increased risk of postoperative abscess (odds ratio (OR) = 13.33, P < 0.001) and sepsis (OR = 11.37, P = 0.026). There was no significant difference in primary outcomes with irrigation. Patients who received irrigation had a longer length of stay (7.59 vs. 4.69 days, P = 0.001) as did those who received an intraoperative drain (7.61 vs. 5.33 days, P = 0.01). Conclusions: In this study, irrigation did not change the OR of sepsis and postoperative abscess. However, placement of an intraoperative drain increased both the rates of sepsis and postoperative abscesses, indicating possible increase in postoperative complications with intraoperative drains when compared with no drains. J Curr Surg. 2019;9(2-3):17-21 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs385 Â
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".