MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050081688 · doi:10.1007/s10350-007-0308-4

Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy Is Associated with a Higher Long-Term Recurrence Rate of Internal Hemorrhoids Compared with Conventional Excisional Hemorrhoid Surgery

2007· review· en· W2050081688 on OpenAlexaff
Shiva Jayaraman, Patrick Colquhoun, Richard Malthaner

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemorrhoidsSurgeryRandomized controlled trialAsymptomaticColorectal surgeryOdds ratioAnal stenosisConfidence intervalAbdominal surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the long-term results of stapled hemorrhoidopexy with conventional excisional hemorrhoidectomy in patients with internal hemorrhoids. METHODS: A systematic review of all randomized, controlled trials comparing stapled hemorrhoidopexy and conventional hemorrhoidectomy with long-term results was performed by using the Cochrane methodology. The minimum follow-up was six months. Primary outcomes were hemorrhoid recurrence, hemorrhoid symptom recurrence, complications, and pain. RESULTS: Twelve trials were included. Follow-up varied from six months to four years. Conventional hemorrhoidectomy was more effective in preventing long-term recurrence of hemorrhoids (odds ratio (OR), 3.85; 95 percent confidence interval (CI), 1.47-10.07; P < 0.006). Conventional hemorrhoidectomy also prevents hemorrhoids in studies with follow-up of one year or more (OR, 3.6; 95 percent CI, 1.24-10.49; P < 0.02). Conventional hemorrhoidectomy is superior in preventing the symptom of prolapse (OR, 2.96; 95 percent CI, 1.33-6.58; P < 0.008). Conventional hemorrhoidectomy also is more effective at preventing prolapse in studies with follow-up of one year or more (OR, 2.68; 95 percent CI, 0.98-7.34; P < 0.05). Nonsignificant trends in favor of conventional hemorrhoidectomy were seen in the proportion of asymptomatic patients, bleeding, soiling/difficultly with hygiene/incontinence, the presence of perianal skin tags, and the need for further surgery. Nonsignificant trends in favor of stapled hemorrhoidopexy were seen in pain, pruritus ani, and symptoms of anal obstruction/stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional hemorrhoidectomy is superior to stapled hemorrhoidopexy for prevention of postoperative recurrence of internal hemorrhoids. Fewer patients who received conventional hemorrhoidectomy complained of hemorrhoidal prolapse in long-term follow-up compared with stapled hemorrhoidopexy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations195
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the Colon & RectumSame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207