MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998068218 · doi:10.1089/lap.2007.0142

Laparoscopic-Assisted Colostomy in Children

2008· article· en· W1998068218 on OpenAlexaff
Claudio De Carli, Marcos Bettolli, Carl-Christian A. Jackson, Brian Sweeney, Steven Rubin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital gastrointestinal and neural anomalies
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImperforate anusColostomyStoma (medicine)SurgeryAnusDefecationComplicationGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Colostomy morbidity has been reported to be as high as 50%. Laparoscopic-assisted colostomy (LAC) is associated with decreased colostomy complication. LAC is recommended for stoma formation in adults but has not been previously reported in children. In this paper, we report on our initial experience with LAC in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a two- to four-port (3.5-mm) technique, LAC was performed in a female with an imperforate anus and 2 male patients with complicated Hirschsprung's disease (HD), respectively. Data collected included operative time, time to recover bowel function, and morbidity. Close follow-up was done until stoma closure. RESULTS: The operative time was 144 minutes in the HD patients (including concomitant laparoscopic biopsies and a leveling colostomy) and 40 minutes in the imperforate anus patient. Median time to passage of both flatus and stool was 40 hours (range, 24-48). Time to commence feeds postop was 40 hours (range, 24-48). The median time of follow-up was 3 months (range, 2-9) until the stoma was taken down. No complications have occurred to date. CONCLUSIONS: LAC is safe and easily performed in neonates and infants. It facilitates accurate stoma placement and orientation. It allows additional bowel mobilization, especially in HD. In accordance with the adult experience, LAC seems to obviate stoma-related complications. Encouraged by our initial low morbidity rate, a prospective evaluation of this technique is planned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical TechniquesSame topicCongenital gastrointestinal and neural anomaliesFrench-language works237,207