MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148143692 · doi:10.3389/fsurg.2021.590245

Long Term Outcome After Open Abdomen Treatment: Function and Quality of Life

2021· article· en· W3148143692 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexis Theodorou, Agnes Jedig, Steffen Manekeller, Arnulf Willms, Dimitrios Pantelis, Hanno Matthaei, Nico Schäfer, Jörg C. Kalff, Martin W. von Websky

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Surgery and Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncisional herniaAbdominal compartment syndromeSurgeryAbdomenHerniaVisual analogue scaleQuality of life (healthcare)PeritonitisAbdominal wallProspective cohort studyAbdominal surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Open abdomen treatment (OAT) is widely accepted to manage severe abdominal conditions such as peritonitis and abdominal compartment syndrome but can be associated with high morbidity and mortality. The main risks in OAT are (1) entero-atmospheric fistula (EAF), (2) failure of primary fascial closure, and (3) incisional hernias. In this study, we assessed the long-term functional outcome after OAT to understand which factors impacted most on quality of life (QoL)/daily living activities and the natural course after OAT. Materials and Methods: After a retrospective analysis of 165 consecutive OAT patients over a period of 10 years (2002–2012) with over 65 clinical parameters that had been performed at our center (1), we initiated a prospective structured follow-up approach. All survivors were invited for a clinical follow-up. Forty complete datasets including clinical and social follow-up with SF-36 scores were available for full analysis. Results: The patients were dominantly male (75%) with a median age of 52 years. Primary fascial closure (PC) was achieved in 9/40 (23%), while in 77% a planned ventral hernia (PVH) approach was followed. A total of 3/4 of the PVH patients underwent a secondary-stage abdominal wall reconstruction (SSR), but 2/3 of these reconstructed patients developed recurrent hernias. Fifty-five percent of the patients with PC developed an incisional hernia, while 20% of all patients developed significant scarring (Vancouver Scar Score >8). Scar pain was described by 15% of the patients as “moderate” [Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 4–6] and by 10% as “severe” (VAS > 7). While hernia presence, PC or PVH, and scarring showed no impact on QoL, male sex and especially EAF formation significantly reduced QoL. Discussion: Despite many advantages, OAT was associated with relevant mortality and morbidity, especially in the early era before the implementation of a structured concept at our center. Follow-up revealed that hernia incidence after OAT and secondary reconstruction were high and that 25% of patients qualifying for a secondary reconstruction either did not want surgery or were unfit. Sex and EAF formation impacted significantly on QoL, which was lower than in the general population. With regard to hernia incidence, new strategies such as prophylactic mesh implantation upon fascial closure should be discussed analogous to other major abdominal procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in SurgerySame topicAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207