Short‐ and Long‐Term Outcomes of Right‐Sided Diverticulitis: Over 15 Years of North American Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Right-sided colonic diverticulitis represents less than 5% of diverticulitis cases in North America. The purpose of this study was to describe the management and outcomes for patients with a first episode of right-sided diverticulitis in a North American center. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, including all patients managed for right-sided diverticulitis at a single tertiary-care institution from 2000 to 2017. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment strategies were described. Short- (emergency surgery, operative morbidity, treatment failure) and long-term (recurrence, elective operation) outcomes were reported. Patients with right-sided diverticulitis were then compared to a cohort of patients with left-sided diverticulitis. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were managed for a first episode of right-sided diverticulitis, three (4.5%) of which were subsequently diagnosed with right-sided colon cancer; 64 patients therefore formed the population. Mean age was 51.2 ± 17.7 years. Eight patients (12.5%) self-identified as being Asian. The majority of patients had uncomplicated disease (90.6%); six (9.4%) presented with complicated diverticulitis. Most cases were diagnosed by computed tomography (78.1%), while 17.2% were diagnosed intra-operatively and 4.7% by pathology. Almost all patients diagnosed by computed tomography were managed nonoperatively. Fifteen patients (23.4%) were managed surgically: ten for suspected appendicitis, three for suspected colon mass, and two for diffuse peritonitis. After a median follow-up of 74.8 months (IQR 30.2-130.5), only two patients (3.1%) developed recurrent right-sided diverticulitis. Among patients managed nonoperatively, recurrence was significantly lower in patients with right-sided diverticulitis relative to left-sided diverticulitis (4.1% vs. 32.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Right-sided diverticulitis can be successfully managed nonoperatively with low rates of recurrence. In populations in which this condition is more seldom observed, underlying colon cancers should be considered.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".