Hinchey Ia acute diverticulitis with isolated pericolic air on CT imaging; to operate or not? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal pathologies and its prevalence increases with the aging of the population in Western countries. Approximately 15% of patients with Hinchey Ia acute diverticulitis present with concomitant isolated pericolic air bubbles that denote intestinal perforation and thus prompting a more "aggressive" treatment attitude, including emergency surgery, despite the absence of evidence-based indications. This study is trying to delineate whether this approach is justified or whether a conservative treatment would suffice for this group of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched in order to identify all studies that reported the need for emergency surgery and for percutaneous drainage in patients presenting with Hinchey Ia colonic diverticulitis with extraluminal pericolic gas on CT imaging who were initially treated conservatively. The last database search was performed on November 29, 2019 and no language or study type restriction criteria were applied. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of selected studies. RESULTS: Nine observational cohort studies with 411 patients reported the need for emergency surgery, with a pooled rate of 5.1%. Among these studies, four studies comprising 165 patients reported the need for percutaneous drainage separately with a pooled rate of 1.2%. CONCLUSION: Non-operative management of Hinchey Ia acute diverticulitis with isolated pericolic air is feasible and safe with a success rate of 94.9%. Abscess formation requiring percutaneous drainage is present in only 1.2% of patients, thus rendering the conservative initial treatment of these patients justified. Nevertheless, low quality of included studies indicates further research to validate the outcomes of this review.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".