Factors associated with complications in anaesthesia of the elderly in a low-income country: the case of MONKOLE Hospital Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Anaesthesia of the elderly is at risk of complications. No study has been devoted to this in our country. This study investigated anaesthetic morbidity and mortality in this type of patient. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at Monkole Hospital from January, 1st2011 to December, 31st2020. It included all patients aged at least 65 years undergoing anaesthesia for any surgery. Peri-anaesthetic data were collected and analysed with SPSS 22.0 for p<5%. Results: Of 404 patients, representing 4.8% of all patients, 284 were men (70.2%) and 120 were women (29.7%), with a predominance of patients aged 65 to 74 years (70.5%). Co-morbidities were present in 77% of patients, including hypertension in 52.2%. General and visceral surgery (48%) and urology (29.5%) predominated. Surgical procedures were major in 45.8% of patients. The majority of patients were ASA II (61.38%) and 3% were ASA IV. Locoregional anaesthesia was used in 51.7% of cases and general anaesthesia with intubation in 30.9%. The complication and death rates were 12.9% and 5.9% respectively. The factors associated with postoperative complications were: under nutrition, coma and ASA IV class, and those associated with mortality were: thromboembolic risk, ASA IV class, major surgical procedure and duration of anaesthesia and surgery ≥2 hours. Conclusion: Anaesthesia for the elderly represented 5% of surgical procedures. Mortality was influenced by major surgical procedures, ASA IV class and duration of anaesthesia ≥2 hours and not by age itself.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".