Peristeen anal irrigation as a substitute for the MACE procedure in children who are in need of reconstructive bladder surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the efficacy of the Peristeen (Coloplast A/S, Kokkedal, Denmark) transanal irrigation (TAI) system, as a stool cleansing mechanism, to gain stool continence in children who need reconstructive bladder surgery and have fecal incontinence. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated children with neuropathic bladder and bowel dysfunction who were intended for reconstructive bladder surgery and the Malone antegrade continence enema (MACE) procedure. All patients were started on the Peristeen TAI system at least 3 months before surgery to assess their response. Each patient's bowel function, frequency of using the system, satisfaction (and that of their parents) and diaper independency were evaluated before and after reconstructive surgery. RESULTS: We included 18 patients (11 female, 7 male) who were evaluated from April 2006 to the present. The mean age of the group was 7.6 years (range: 4-15). Fifteen patients (83.3%) showed complete dryness from stools. Of the 15 patients, 8 (53.3%) were able to be diaper-free, while 6 continued wearing diapers due to fear of soiling and 1 due to urinary incontinence. The patients underwent reconstructive bladder surgery and continued to use the Peristeen TAI system with the same results postoperatively. The main limitation of this study is the small number of patients included, although this is a very specific patient group. CONCLUSION: Our initial results suggest that the Peristeen TAI system is a successful conservative substitute for the MACE procedure in children who require reconstructive bladder surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".