Predictors of Outcome of Rectovaginal Fistula Surgery in Women With Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite measures taken to control traditional risk factors like increased rectal disease activity, anorectal stenosis, and, to a lesser extent, obesity, rates of poor outcomes after rectovaginal fistula (RVF) surgery in women with Crohn's disease (CD) are still high and require further elucidation. To bridge the gap, we sought to identify risk factors beyond the aforementioned determinants that may be associated with poor outcomes in these patients. METHODS: We designed a retrospective, unmatched, case-control study to test our hypothesis. The population comprised women with CD who underwent RVF surgery between the years of 2000 and 2013. Cases were defined as surgeries with an unsuccessful outcome at 4 weeks post-surgery, and controls represented those with a successful outcome at 4 weeks post-surgery. With multivariable logistic regression models, we sought to identify pertinent risk factors for poor outcomes after RVF surgery in these women. RESULTS: Of the 108 women with CD who were referred to our institution for evaluation of RVFs between 2000 and 2013, 39 underwent a total of 63 surgeries, of which 16 were cases and 47 were controls. There were no significant differences between them with regard to medications and clinical or mucosal disease severity, but a significantly higher proportion of poor outcomes arose from the group of women who underwent a mucosal flap procedure (88%) compared to those who had a seton placed (13%; P = 0.0004). The final adjusted logistic regression model demonstrated that women who underwent a mucosal flap procedure instead of a seton placement were 17.5 times more likely to have a poor surgical outcome (odds ratio (OR): 17.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.12 - 98.43; P = 0.0012). Moreover, it was seen that women with active colonic mucosal disease, independent of rectal disease activity, were 4.4 times more likely to have a poor outcome (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 1.06 - 18.26). CONCLUSION: Mucosal flap procedures, representing the second, or definitive, stage in surgical treatment of RVF are associated with much worse outcomes and therefore should be preceded by aggressive medical optimization of the patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".