MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086006191 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i8.2490

Clinical observations on the treatment of prolapsing hemorrhoids with tissue selecting therapy

2015· article· en· W2086006191 on OpenAlexaff
Zhigang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemorrhoidsVisual analogue scaleSurgeryDefecationBlood lossSignificant differenceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To compare the effects and postoperative complications between tissue selecting therapy stapler (TST) and Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy (M-M). METHODS: Four hundred and eighty patients with severe prolapsing hemorrhoids, who were admitted to the Shenyang Coloproctology Hospital between 2009 and 2012, were randomly divided into observation (n=240) and control (n=240) groups. Hemorrhoidectomies were performed with TST in the observation group and with the M-M technique in the control group. The therapeutic effects, operation security, and postoperative complications in the two groups were compared. The immediate and long-term complications were assessed according to corresponding criteria. Pain was assessed on a visual analogue scale. The efficacy was assessed by specialized criteria. The follow-up was conducted one year after the operation. RESULTS: The total effective rates of the observation and control groups were 99.5% (217/218) and 98.6% (218/221) respectively; the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.322). Their were significant differences between observation and control groups in intraoperative blood loss (5.07±1.14 vs 2.45±0.57, P=0.000), pain (12 h after the surgery: 5.08±1.62 vs 7.19±2.01, P=0.000; at first dressing change: 2.64±0.87 vs 4.34±1.15, P=0.000; first defecation: 3.91±1.47 vs 5.63±1.98, P=0.001), urine retention (n=22 vs n=47, P=0.001), anal pendant expansion after the surgery (2.35±0.56 vs 5.16±1.42, P=0.000), operation time (18.3±5.6 min vs 29.5±8.2 min, P=0.000), and the length of hospital stay (5.3±0.6 d vs 11.4±1.8 d, P=0.000). Moreover TST showed significant reductions compared to M-M in the rates of long-term complications such as fecal incontinence (n=3 vs n=16, P=0.003), difficult bowel movement (n=1 vs n=9, P=0.011), intractable pain (n=2 vs n=12, P=0.007), and anal discharge (n=3 vs n=23, P=0.000). CONCLUSION: TST for severe prolapsing hemorrhoids is a satisfactory technique for more rapid recovery, lower complication rates, and higher operation security.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207