Pouch-Vaginal Fistula After Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: Treatment and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pouch-vaginal fistula is an uncommon but serious complication after ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The management of pouch-vaginal fistulas is challenging and a number of treatment options exist. The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes after various procedures for pouch-vaginal fistula performed at our institution. METHODS: Patients who were treated for pouch-vaginal fistula at Mount Sinai Hospital were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Demographic, disease history, treatment, and outcomes data were obtained. Treatment success was defined as no recurrence of the fistula with a functioning pouch and no ileostomy. RESULTS: Since November 1982, 24 of 619 (3.9 percent) women who had primary ileal pouch-anal anastomosis performed at Mount Sinai Hospital developed a pouch-vaginal fistula. Five women had ileal pouch-anal anastomosis performed at another institution and were referred for management of their pouch-vaginal fistula. Local and/or combined abdominoperineal repairs were performed in 22 of 29 patients. Combined abdominoperineal repairs were associated with a higher success rate than that of local perineal repairs (52.9 vs. 7.9 percent, respectively, at 10 years after repair; p = 0.035). Overall, 50 percent (11/22) of patients who underwent surgical repair of a pouch-vaginal fistula had a successful result with a functioning pouch and no recurrence of the fistula, and 21 percent (6/29) of patients required pouch excision. CONCLUSIONS: The management of pouch-vaginal fistula after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is associated with a high recurrence rate. Combined abdominoperineal repair appears to offer better results than those of local procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".