Laparoscopic Colectomy Using Cancer Principles Is Appropriate for Colonoscopically Unresectable Adenomas of the Colon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to determine the risks of cancer in unresectable polyps and to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic colectomy with that of open colectomy for benign polyps. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients (n = 165) undergoing colectomy for an adenoma unresectable at colonoscopy was performed on patients collected in a prospective database. One hundred four patients underwent laparoscopic colectomy and 61 underwent open colectomy between 1991 and 2003. Follow-up was 7 to 155 (median, 90) months. RESULTS: In the laparoscopic group, 85% of the patients underwent a right colectomy and 15% underwent a left colectomy or a sigmoidectomy. Conversion to open colectomy occurred in 4.8% of the cases. Complications occurred in 14% of the patients, including 1 death. The median length of stay was 4 days. At final pathology, cancer was diagnosed in 15 patients: stage I in 8 patients, stage II in 5, and stage III in 2. In the open colectomy group, 69% of the patients underwent right colectomy. The complication rate reached 23% (P = .13), including death in 2 patients. The median length of stay was 6 days (P < .01). Cancer was diagnosed in 6 patients: stage I in 5 patients, and stage II in 1. Proximal (10 cm) and distal (13 cm) margins, lymph nodes harvest (9), incidence of cancer (13%), and high-grade dysplasia (22%) were similar between groups. There were no local recurrences, trocar site implants, or deaths due to cancer. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic colectomy for polyps unresectable at colonoscopy is safe. Oncologic resection of the colon should be performed for all colonoscopically unresectable polyps due to the risk of cancer.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".