Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rectal prolapse (RP) is a rare condition characterized by rectums protrusion through the anus with all of its layers. RP is a condition deteriorating the quality of life. Although more than 100 surgical procedures were described so far for the treatment of RP, the ideal treatment method still remains unclear. In this study, demographical data and clinical results of 13 patients who were treated at our clinic for RP for a period of 3 years were retrospectively studied, with the aim of comparing with the results of other repair methods mentioned in the literature. METHODS: Total of 13 patients admitted to the general surgery unit and the emergency units between January 2008 and December 2010 were included in the study. All of the cases were treated by modified Notoras technique using various synthetic materials. RESULTS: Of the patients, 8 were male, and 5 were female. Average age was 45.6 years (range: 23 - 79 years), and the average hospitalization time was 11.3 days (range: 3 - 19 days), with the symptom time being an average of 12 years (range: 1 - 30 years). All patients having complaints described mass prolapsing from the anal canal during defecation, rectal pain, and constipation. Six of our patients also had complaints of rectal bleeding. Average follow-up time was 24 months. No recurrence and mortality were monitored in patients who were followed. CONCLUSIONS: The main purposes in the surgical treatment of RP were to control the prolapse, and to achieve continence and remedy constipation. We believe that the modified Notoras technique made using synthetic materials the most suitable one compared to other rectopexy methods in the treatment of RP because it is safe and easily applicable. KEYWORDS: Rectal prolapse; Rectopexy; Modified Notoras technique.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".