Revising the troublesome stoma: combined abdominal wall recontouring and revision of stomas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite preoperative siting and maturation of stomas, some patients may have poor stoma function because of redundant pannus, scars, creases, and parastomal or incisional hernias. In these patients, a combined abdominoplasty and stoma revision may be helpful. The object of this manuscript is to report our preliminary results. METHODS: Eight patients (mean age, 48 years; female/male ratio, 7/1) undergoing this procedure are reported. Five patients had inflammatory bowel disease, two had malignancies, and one had multiple sclerosis with bladder and bowel involvement. Patients were contacted at two months to two years follow-up to assess functional outcome and satisfaction with the procedure. RESULTS: Indications for surgery were difficulty maintaining an appliance (n = 7), frequent stool leakage (n = 6), and skin irritation (n = 4). Multiple surgeries (n = 4), skin creases (n = 3), scarring (n = 2), large weight loss (n = 4), and hernias (n = 5) were contributing factors. At surgery five patients had hernias repaired (3 parastomal, 2 incisional), three had stomas resited, and three underwent resections for Crohn's disease. One patient developed a seroma postoperatively. At follow-up six patients were able to maintain an appliance for at least four days, whereas one changed the appliance every three days because of personal preference. None experience stool leakage. All reported a dramatic improvement in body image. CONCLUSION: Combined stoma revision and abdominoplasty can be performed safely and leads to improved functional results and outcome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".