Early intensive mobilization after acute high-risk abdominal surgery: a nonrandomized prospective feasibility trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mobilization after emergency abdominal surgery is considered essential to facilitate rehabilitation and reduce postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of early intensive mobilization after acute high-risk abdominal (AHA) surgery. Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized, prospective feasibility trial of consecutive patients after AHA surgery at a university hospital in Denmark. The participants followed a predefined, interdisciplinary protocol for early intensive mobilization during the first 7 postoperative days (PODs) of their hospital admission. We evaluated feasibility in accordance with the percentage of patients who mobilized within 24 hours after surgery, mobilized at least 4 times per day and achieved daily goals of time out of bed and walking distance. Results: We included 48 patients with a mean age of 61 (standard deviation 17) years (48% female). Within 24 hours after surgery, 92% of the patients were mobilized and 82% or more were mobilized at least 4 times per day over the first 7 PODs. On PODs 1–3, 70%–89% of the participants achieved the daily goals of mobilization; participants still in hospital after POD 3 were less able to achieve the daily goals. Patient reported that the primary factors limiting their level of mobilization were fatigue, pain and dizziness. Participants not mobilized independently on POD 3 (28%) had significantly (p ≤ 0.04) fewer hours out of bed (4 v. 8 h), were less able to achieve the goals of time out of bed (45% v. 95%) and walking distance (62% v. 94%) and had longer hospital stays (14 v. 6 d) than participants mobilized independently on POD 3. Conclusion: The early intensive mobilization protocol seems feasible for most patients after AHA surgery. For nonindependent patients, however, alternative mobilization strategies and goals should be investigated.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".