Influence of Experience on Laparoscopic Ileocolic Resection for Crohn's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The technical difficulties that are frequently encountered in surgery for Crohn's disease have led some authors to suggest Crohn's cases should not be attempted early in one's laparoscopic colorectal surgery experience. This article reviews one surgeon's experience with laparoscopic terminal ileal resections for Crohn's disease to assess the safety of beginning laparoscopic colorectal resections with these procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of all laparoscopic ileocolic resections performed by a single surgeon was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-nine (82 percent) of 84 procedures were completed laparoscopically. Reasons for conversion were dense adhesions (n = 5) and complex masses (n = 10). The mean operating time for the entire group was 145 +/- 39 (range, 87-289) minutes. Postoperative length of stay was 5.6 +/- 2.4 (range, 2-21) days. The mean incision length in the laparoscopic group was 4.5 +/- 1.15 cm. If the series is examined in three equal intervals, the number of patients with multiple difficulties (abscess, fistula, and previous resection or mass) increased in the final part of the study, without affecting complication or conversion rates. Despite the increased case complexity, average length of stay was significantly reduced between the second and third time periods (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Despite its technical demands, laparoscopic ileocolic resection was a safe procedure with potential advantages to patients. Laparoscopic resection is possible in the vast majority of patients with ileocolic Crohn's disease, regardless of the nature of the pathology. Previous resections, abscesses, fistulas, and phlegmons do not preclude success, although these cases should likely not be the first attempted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".