Laparoscopic-Assisted Versus Open Ileocolic Resection for Adolescent Crohn Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection for Crohn disease has been reported as an acceptable alternative to the open procedure in adults. We evaluated our experience with this procedure in the adolescent population. METHODS: All adolescents undergoing ileocolic resection for Crohn disease during a 3-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Intraoperative and early postoperative results were analyzed, comparing those undergoing the laparoscopic-assisted approach with those having open resection. RESULTS: Eleven patients (mean age, 15.6 years) underwent open and 12 patients (mean age, 16.5 years) underwent laparoscopic-assisted resection. None had undergone previous resection. The two groups did not differ with respect to time from diagnosis to surgery, indications for surgery, preoperative medical therapy, operative time, or length of intestine resected. One patient in the laparoscopic-assisted group was converted to an open procedure. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Although no statistically significant differences were noted for number of days on narcotic, total dosage of narcotic, and time to regular diet, patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted resection were discharged 2.2 days earlier (5.4 vs. 7.6; P < 0.05). There was one wound infection and one intraabdominal abscess in the open resection group, and a single patient in the laparoscopic-assisted group with postoperative fever and a wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic-assisted ileocolic resection is a safe alternative to open surgery in adolescent patients with Crohn disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".