The Status of Radical Proctectomy and Sphincter-Sparing Surgery in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Worldwide, "centers of excellence" in rectal cancer surgery report high rates of anal sphincter-sparing surgery (70-90 percent) after proctectomy. The rate of sphincter-sparing surgery with reestablishment of intestinal continuity in the general population of the United Stares is unknown. METHODS: We used data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a 20 percent stratified random sample of patients admitted to hospitals in the United States. We identified patients with rectal cancer from 1988 through 2003 who underwent sphincter-sparing surgery with reestablishment of intestinal continuity or proctectomy with colostomy. To determine predictors of sphincter-sparing surgery with reestablishment of intestinal continuity, we constructed a multivariate model that analyzed patients' age, gender, race, insurance status, and income level. RESULTS: During our 16-year study period, radical extirpative procedures were performed in 41,631 patients: 16,510 (39.7 percent) sphincter-sparing surgery with reestablishment of intestinal continuity, and 25,121 (60.3 percent) sphincter-sacrificing procedures. The proportion of sphincter-sparing procedures increased from 26.9 percent in 1988 to 48.3 percent in 2003 (P < 0.001). There has been no significant change in the rate of sphincter-sparing surgery since 1999 (P = not significant). Logistic regression revealed that patients who were older, male, black, used Medicaid insurance, or lived in lower-income zip codes were less likely to have sphincter-sparing surgery with reestablishment of intestinal continuity (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significant increase in the rate of sphincter-sparing surgery with reestablishment of intestinal continuity, most radical resections for rectal cancer in hospitals in the United States result in a colostomy. Patients vulnerable to proctectomy without sphincter preservation were older, male, black, used Medicaid insurance, or lived in lower income zip codes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".