Percutaneous Cecostomy: Updates in Technique and Patient Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the authors' 7-year experience with the percutaneous cecostomy procedure and the long-term outcome of the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Since 1994, 163 tube cecostomies for fecal incontinence were performed in patients aged 2-23 years and who weighed 8-72 kg (mean, 32.2 kg). Underlying conditions included spina bifida (n = 106), imperforate anus (n = 53), Klippel-Feil deformity (n = 1), cerebral palsy (n = 1), Hirschsprung disease (n = 1), and paraplegia (n = 1). Ventriculoperitoneal shunts were present in 85 (52%) of the 163 patients. The authors have followed up 124 (76%) of the 163 cecostomy patients. Information regarding enema technique, satisfaction with the procedure, postprocedure problems, and long-term outcome of the procedure was obtained by interviewing either the patients or the parents. RESULTS: Tube placement was successful in all patients. One hundred ten (89%) of the 124 patients experienced a substantial decrease in the frequency of soiling accidents. The vast majority of patients expressed satisfaction with the procedure; 117 (94%) of the 124 patients rated the cecostomy procedure as better than the bowel control procedure used before. Late complications of the procedure included granulation tissue and accidentally dislodged tubes. Four patients elected to have their tubes removed for aesthetic and tube management reasons. There was no mortality related to the procedure, although one patient died of pneumonia 5 years later. CONCLUSION: The percutaneous cecostomy procedure is a safe and effective method for treating fecal incontinence.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".