Does Liver Resection Remain a Viable Option in Patients With Pyogenic Liver Abscess? A Single-Center Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyogenic liver abscesses (PLAs) are relatively rare but often fatal if left untreated. Antibiotic therapy combined with percutaneous procedures has replaced surgery as the cornerstone of treatment. However, open surgical drainage or liver resection may be a last resort. This study aimed to review our experience in treating PLA, with a focus on the conditions requiring partial liver resection as the last viable curative option. Medical records of patients with PLA admitted to Jordan Hospital between October 2014 through October 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Medical and demographic data of all 43 patients admitted to our facility with a diagnosis of PLA were extracted. We reviewed these patients and extracted the cases that required surgical intervention. Four (three males and one female) of the 43 patients with PLA required surgical intervention. The underlying causes of liver abscesses were as follows: one traumatic due to shrapnel injury from an explosion, one following chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma, and two patients with no apparent etiology. All patients were diagnosed with a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast. Two patients had negative cultures. All patients received broad-spectrum antibiotics, and all underwent CT- or ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage or aspiration. All four patients required partial hepatic resection due to treatment failure or inaccessible percutaneous procedures with clinical improvement. Although antimicrobial and interventional therapy remains the primary treatment option in PLA, the surgical option with open surgical drainage or partial liver resection remains viable and curative in selected patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".