Proximal Diversion at the Time of Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pelvic sepsis is a serious complication after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis that may lead to pouch failure or poor function. Although a temporary loop ileostomy may be created at the time of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis to prevent or minimize the consequences of an anastomotic leak, research has suggested that an ileostomy can be safely omitted in selected patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the use of proximal diversion by colorectal surgeons at the time of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all practicing fellows of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons in North America. Surgeons were asked to describe their typical practice for a number of clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Questionnaires were mailed to 913 American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons fellows, and 63 percent responded. For a patient who has had a prior colectomy and is not taking steroids, 27 percent of surgeons would perform ileal pouch-anal anastomosis alone, and 73 percent would perform ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with a loop ileostomy. For a patient who has not had previous surgery and is taking prednisone 40 mg/day, 16 percent of surgeons would perform a subtotal colectomy with an end ileostomy, 82 percent would perform a total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with a loop ileostomy, and 2 percent would perform a total proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis without an ileostomy. There was no relationship between practice setting, annual ileal pouch-anal anastomosis volume, or years in practice and surgeon response for either scenario. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surgeons create a temporary loop ileostomy at the time of ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".