The Problematic Duhamel Pouch in Hirschsprung’s Disease: Manifestations and Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Duhamel operation is commonly employed to treat Hirschsprung's disease (HD). We have seen a number of patients referred to our center with problems following a Duhamel procedure performed elsewhere, and have analyzed our experience with these children. METHODS: We reviewed 17 patients with Hirschsprung's disease who underwent a Duhamel procedure elsewhere, in whom we performed a redo pull-through for persistent symptoms of constipation, impaction, and enterocolitis. RESULTS: All patients (n=17) had constipation/impaction or enterocolitis, 9 of whom were soiling due to overflow incontinence. Biopsies of the pulled-through bowel found 6 patients with persistent aganglionic bowel and 2 patients with ganglion cells present but hypertrophic nerves, a finding we interpreted as "transition zone bowel". The remaining 9 patients without a pathological indication for reoperation had a mega Duhamel pouch. All patients underwent a redo operation: 8 via a posterior sagittal approach (7 with a laparotomy, 1 without) and 9 by a transanal, Swenson-type resection with a laparotomy. The posterior sagittal approach was used in cases with severe pelvic fibrosis considered unsuitable for a trans-anal operation. 15 patients were followed up postoperatively for longer than 2 months, 13 of whom now have voluntary bowel movements, including 8 who need a small dose of laxatives. 2 patients are still diverted. CONCLUSION: Although perhaps successful for many patients around the world, the Duhamel pull-through can leave patients with significant symptoms, including impaction and overflow incontinence. It is unclear why some patients with a Duhamel pouch do not empty well. Clearly, those patients with a mega Duhamel pouch suffer from impaction. These patients need to be detected, because reoperation with resection of the Duhamel pouch can dramatically improve their quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".