MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323245213 · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e31823ac2bc

The Artificial Bowel Sphincter

2011· article· en· W2323245213 on OpenAlex
Mark T. C. Wong, G. Meurette, Vincent Wyart, Pascal Glémain, Paul‐Antoine Lehur

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverticular Disease and Complications
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArtificial urinary sphincterGeneral surgerySurgeryUrinary incontinence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.439
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.089 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it