The Artificial Bowel Sphincter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A report on the long-term results of a consecutive series of patients implanted with the Acticon Neosphincter. METHOD: Data were reviewed from a prospective database. From May 1996 to Jan 2010, 52 patients (46 women), mean age 51.5 ± 14.8 years, with severe fecal incontinence for a mean of 10.6 ± 10.5 years, were implanted with 85 devices. All patients had failed conservative management, including 13 with unsuccessful prior surgical treatments. Indications for implantation were sphincter destruction (45), pudendal neuropathy (12), congenital malformation (7), and perineal colostomy (4). Preoperative assessment included anal endosonography, anorectal manometry, and electrophysiologic testing. Incontinence (Wexner) and Quality of Life scores were recorded prior to the procedure and at each follow-up visit, together with annual anal physiology assessments. Cumulative risks of device revision and explantation were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 64.3 ± 46.5 months (range, 2-169); 26 patients (50%) required revisions after a mean of 57.7 ± 35.0 months, with 73.1% due to a leaking cuff from a microperforation; 14 patients (26.9%) required definitive explantation after a mean of 14.6 ± 7.9 months, with the majority (42.9%) due to infection; and 9 patients were lost to follow-up. In 35 patients (67.3%) with an activated device, there were significant improvements in both median Wexner (P < 0.0001) and Quality-of-life scores (P = 0.0286). There was a significant difference between preoperative resting anal pressures and closed pressures at activation (P < 0.0001) and latest follow-up (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: With careful patient selection, meticulous surgical technique, and dedicated surveillance, favorable long-term results can be achieved with acceptable rates of revision and explantation.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".