Subtotal Colectomy in Severe Ulcerative and Crohn’s Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparative outcome data for laparoscopic and open subtotal colectomy in IBD are lacking and often difficult to interpret owing to low case volumes, heterogeneity in case mix, and variation in laparoscopic technique. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the safety of laparoscopic subtotal colectomy in severe colitis and to determine whether the laparoscopic approach improved short-term outcomes in comparison with the open approach. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study using data from a prospectively maintained clinical database. SETTING: This study was conducted at a single center, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing subtotal colectomy for either ulcerative or Crohn's colitis between 2000 and 2011 were included. INTERVENTION: A standardized operative technique was used for both laparoscopic and open subtotal colectomies. Cases performed by non-laparoscopic surgeons were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative outcome measures were operative duration, estimated blood loss, total morphine requirement, and length of postoperative stay. Postoperative outcome measures were the rates of minor and major complications. RESULTS: Laparoscopic subtotal colectomies were performed in 131 of 290 cases (45.2%). Nine patients required conversion to an open procedure (6.9%). The uptake of laparoscopic subtotal colectomy increased from 10.2% in 2000/2001 to 71.7% in 2010/2011. Regression analysis with propensity-score adjustment for operative approach revealed that the operative duration was 25.5 minutes longer in laparoscopic cases (95% CI 12.3-38.6; p < 0.001), but that patients experienced fewer minor complications (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23-0.96; p = 0.04) and required less morphine (adjusted difference, -72.8 mg; 95% CI 4.9-141; p = 0.04). LIMITATIONS: The inherent selection bias of this retrospective cohort study may not be accounted for by multivariate analysis with propensity-score adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy is safe and may reduce the rate of minor postoperative complications. The increase in operative duration reflects the technical demands associated with this procedure (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/DCR/A160).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".