Techniques and Outcomes of Endoscopic Decompression Using Transanal Drainage Tube Placement for Acute Left-sided Colorectal Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: If it is possible, endoscopic decompression for acute left-sided colorectal obstruction will be effective in critically ill patients. This study was to evaluate the techniques and outcomes of transanal drainage tube placement following urgent colonoscopy in management of acute left-sided colorectal obstruction. METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2009, 69 consecutive patients (36 males, age 38 to 94, mean = 71) were hospitalized because of acute left-sided colorectal obstruction. Urgent colonoscopy was performed within 12 hours of entry for diagnosis and treatment (mean time, 6.5 hours). Endoscopic decompression using a transanal drainage tube was attempted. Clinical success, methods used, and complications were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The cause of obstruction was colorectal carcinoma in 66 patients (96%). The site of obstruction was sigmoid colon in 37 (54%), rectum in 20 (29%), and descending colon in 12 (17%). Out of 69 patients, endoscopic decompression using the transanal drainage tube was successful in 66 (96%). The use of combination of transanal drainage tube and the equipped guidewire enabled endoscopic decompression was successful in 45 patients (65%), though a small-diameter upper endoscope was used in 2 patients to introduce the guidewire beyond the obstruction. Perforation during the placement developed in 2 patients and one patient was unsuccessful. CONCLUSIONS: Transanal drainage tube placement following urgent colonoscopy was effective in the management of acute left-sided colorectal obstruction. In the majority of patients, the materials and methods used for the transanal drainage tube placement were simple and easy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".