The impact of orthostatic intolerance on early ambulation following abdominal surgery in an enhanced recovery programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of orthostatic intolerance on the day of surgery is more than 50% after abdominal surgery. The impact of orthostatic intolerance on ambulation on the day of surgery has been little studied. We investigated orthostatic intolerance and walking ability after colorectal and bariatric surgery in an enhanced recovery programme. METHODS: Eighty-two patients (colorectal: n = 46, bariatric n = 36) were included and analysed in this prospective study. Walk tests for 2 min (2-MWT) and 6 min (6-MWT) were performed before and 24 h after surgery, and 3 h after surgery for 2-MWT. Orthostatic intolerance characterised by presyncopal symptoms when rising was recorded at the same time points. Multivariate binary logistic regressions modelling the probability of orthostatic intolerance and walking inability were performed taking into account potential risk factors. RESULTS: Prevalence of orthostatic intolerance and walking inability was, respectively, 65% and 18% 3-hour after surgery. The day after surgery, patients' performance had greatly improved: approximately 20% of the patients experienced orthostatic intolerance, whilst only 5% of the patients were unable to walk. Adjusted binary logistic regressions demonstrated that age (p = .37), sex (p = .39), BMI (p = .74), duration of anaesthesia (p = .71) and type of surgery (p = .71) did not significantly influence walking ability. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that orthostatic intolerance was frequent (~ 60%) 3-hour after abdominal surgery but prevented a 2-MWT only in ~20% of patients. No risk factors for orthostatic intolerance and walking inability were evidenced.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".