Outcomes Following Fecal Continence Procedures in Patients with Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Malone antegrade continence enema and cecostomy button improve quality of life in patients with neurogenic bowel. However, they have not been compared regarding fecal continence outcomes. We compared these 2 procedures with respect to continence, complications and conversions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who underwent Malone antegrade continence enema or cecostomy at the University of Alberta between January 2006 and January 2011. A total of 26 patients underwent Malone antegrade continence enema, of whom 20 underwent concomitant Monti procedure and bladder augmentation, 5 a laparoscopically assisted procedure and 1 concomitant ileovesicostomy. A total of 23 patients underwent cecostomy, of whom 1 underwent ileovesicostomy, 1 bladder augmentation, 1 a Monti procedure with bladder augmentation and 1 laparoscopic cecostomy. Continence was defined as ability to wear underwear with no accidents at most recent annual followup, which was a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Fecal continence rates were 84.6% for Malone antegrade continence enema and 91.3% for cecostomy. There were no statistically significant differences in continence based on procedure (p = 0.48), age (p = 0.97) or gender (p = 0.54). Of patients who underwent cecostomy 8.7% switched to the Malone antegrade continence enema, while 11.5% with Malone antegrade continence enema switched to cecostomy. Mean length of hospital stay for patients undergoing cecostomy vs laparoscopically assisted Malone antegrade continence enema was 4.0 vs 5.2 days (p = 0.15). Complications included stomal pain (23.1% of patients) and difficulty with catheterizing (19.2%) following Malone antegrade continence enema, and difficulty flushing (26.1%) following cecostomy. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between Malone antegrade continence enema and cecostomy button with respect to fecal continence or complication rates. Each approach poses unique challenges, suggesting that patients and families need to understand the differences to make an individualized choice.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".