Comparative Analysis of Percutaneous Drainage versus Operative Drainage of Intra-Abdominal Abscesses in a Resource-Limited Setting: The Tanzanian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intra-abdominal abscesses (IAAs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. While image-guided percutaneous abscess drainage (PAD) has become the standard of care in many countries, over half of the global population does not have access to interventional radiology (IR) and are left with surgery as the only option for source control. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the development, implementation, and role of a PAD service in a resource-limited setting. Method: A retrospective cohort study was performed on all patients who underwent percutaneous or surgical abscess drainage (SAD) of IAAs at Tanzania's national referral hospital from 10/2018 to 4/2021. Patients were identified through a match case search of institutional records and inclusion was confirmed through manual chart review. Demographics, patient presentation, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were recorded in a password-encrypted database and compared between groups. Findings: Sixty-three patients underwent abscess drainage: 32 percutaneously and 31 surgically. In the PAD group, there was a 100% technical success rate and a 0% complication rate. In the SAD group, there was a 64.5% technical success rate and ten deaths within 30 days (32.3%), and one additional complication requiring major therapy (3.2%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Results from this study demonstrate that PAD can be performed with high technical success and without complication by trained IR physicians in Tanzania. The development of a successful PAD program exemplifies the drastic need to support the growth of IR services in this setting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".