Early experience of stapled hemorrhoidectomy in a community hospital setting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stapled hemorrhoidectomy was introduced as a new procedure for the surgical management of hemorrhoidal disease in 1993. We present a cohort longitudinal study performed in a community hospital setting where the short-term outcomes of stapled hemorrhoidectomy were compared with those of conventional hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: We compared 41 consecutive patients who underwent a conventional open diathermy (Ferguson) hemorrhoidectomy between September 1999 and September 2001 with 40 consecutive patients who underwent a stapled hemorrhoidectomy procedure between September 2001 and June 2004. We analyzed perioperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction and case costing for both groups. RESULTS: The stapled hemorrhoidectomy group comprised 13 men and 27 women. The open hemorrhoidectomy group comprised 9 men and 32 women. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. In the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group, 3 patients presented with postoperative complications and 3 required admission. In the open hemorrhoidectomy group, 14 patients presented with postoperative complications and 11 required admission. At 2-week follow-up, 35 patients (88%) presented no complaints in the stapled hemorrhoidectomy group, versus 27 (66%) in the open hemorrhoidectomy group. The total cost calculated for the stapled hemorrhoidectomy procedure was dollar 716.38, whereas the total cost of the open hemorrhoidectomy procedure was dollar 760.00. CONCLUSIONS: The stapled hemorrhoidectomy technique is a safe alternative to the traditional open hemorrhoidectomy. It can be performed as an outpatient procedure, is well tolerated by patients and is no more expensive than conventional surgical therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".