Management of acute diverticulitis in Stage 0-IIb: indications and risk factors for failure of conservative treatment in a series of 187 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left-sided acute diverticulitis in WSES Stage 0-IIb preferentially undergoes conservative management. However, there is limited understanding of the risk factors for failure of this approach. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors associated with the decision to perform conservative treatment as well as the predictors of its failure. We included patients with a diagnosis of WSES diverticulitis CT-driven classification Stage 0-IIb treated in the Emergency Surgery Unit of the Agostino Gemelli University Hospital Foundation between 2014 and 2020. The endpoints were the comparison between the characteristics and clinical outcomes of acute diverticulitis patients undergoing conservative versus operative treatment. We also identified predictors of conservative treatment failure. A set of multivariable backward logistic analyses were conducted for this purpose. The study included 187 patients. The choice for operative versus conservative treatment was associated with clinical presentation, older age, higher WSES grade, and previous conservative treatment. There were 21% who failed conservative treatment. Of those, major morbidity and mortality rates were 17.9% and 7.1%, respectively. A previously failed conservative treatment as well as a greater WSES grade and a lower hemoglobin value were significantly associated with failure of conservative treatment. WSES classification and hemoglobin value at admission were the best predictors of failure of conservative treatment. Patients failing conservative treatment had non-negligible morbidity and mortality. These results promote the consideration of a combined approach including baseline patients' characteristics, radiologic features, and laboratory biomarkers to predict conservative treatment failure and therefore optimize treatment of acute diverticulitis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".