Increased Experience and Surgical Technique Lead to Improved Outcome After Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: A Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine whether changes in length of stay and 30-day readmission, reoperation, and excision rates for the ileal pouch-anal anastomosis occurred over time and with changes in surgical technique and hospital volume. METHODS: Using three population-based administrative databases, data on all ileal pouch-anal anastomoses performed in the province of Ontario between January 1992 and June 1998 were obtained. The effect of age, gender, stage of the procedure, year of surgery, and hospital volume were examined for their effect on length of stay and readmission, reoperation, and excision rates. RESULTS: There were 1,285 ileal pouch-anal anastomoses performed in 58 hospitals. There was a significant decrease in length of stay and reoperation and excision rates but a concommitant increase in readmission rate during the study period. Patients younger than aged 40 years had a significantly lower length of stay and excision rate. Patients who had a two-stage procedure had a shorter length of stay, readmission, and reoperative rate compared with those having a three-stage procedure. Hospital volume was a significant predictor of need for reoperation and excision with both low-volume and medium-volume hospitals having significantly higher rates than high-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis has improved. It is significantly better in patients younger than aged 40 years, having a two-stage procedure, and where surgery is performed at high-volume hospitals. It is likely that both modifications in surgical technique and surgical experience have led to improvements in clinical outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".