MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087492048 · doi:10.1503/cjs.026309

Ambulatory treatment of chronic pilonidal sinuses with lateral incision and primary suture

2011· article· en· W2087492048 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hemmat Maghsoudi, Nariman Nezami, Ali Akbar Ghamari

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatorySurgeryAsymptomaticSinus (botany)Fibrous jointOutpatient clinicParanasal sinusesInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Outpatient management is appropriate for chronic pilonidal sinuses. Even though there are different surgical treatments for pilonidal sinuses, the outcome may not be uniformly satisfactory. The aim of this paper was to examine the ambulatory treatment of chronic pilonidal sinuses with lateral incision and primary suture. METHODS: We present our experience with outpatient management of asymptomatic chronic pilonidal disease. We prospectively studied patients presenting with pilonidal disease from Mar. 20, 2005, to Mar. 20, 2008. All were managed as outpatients. We reviewed presentation, treatment, healing, time off work and recurrences. RESULTS: In all, 150 patients (131 men and 19 women) with chronic pilonidal sinuses underwent ambulatory plain lateral excision and primary repair during the study period. The mean age of patients was 22.1 years. The mean duration of surgery was 18.4 minutes. No general complications occurred. Local complications consisted of 3 wound infections and 4 wound hematomas. No sinus recurrence occurred. The healing rate was fast in all patients. CONCLUSION: Advantages of ambulatory plain lateral excision and primary repair include immediate treatment, minimal pain and a quick return to normal activities. This method is a simple and effective procedure in the treatment of uncomplicated pilonidal sinuses.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207