Pouch Salvage Surgery for Treatment of Colitis and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: Report of Five Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is currently the preferred surgicalmethod for most patients with ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis and sometimes, functional bowel diseases.Infection around the pouch, remaining rectal stump, stricture at anastomosis site, pouch dysfunction and refractory pouchitis canlead to pouch failure. Pouch salvage surgery could prevent pouch failure in some cases.Case Presentation: In this report, five patients were introduced, who underwent pouch salvage surgery after RPC/IPAA surgeryfailure. Two of the patients were male and three were female and the relevant age range was 16 to 41. Initially, RPC/IPAA surgerywas performed on these five patients. Four of the patients underwent RPC/IPAA surgery as a result of ulcerative colitis and, one ofthe patients as a result of familial adenomatous polyposis. However, due to pouch failure from the RPC/IPAA surgery, pouch-salvagesurgery was performed on each of these five patients. Two of the patients underwent pouch-salvage surgery due to infection andpouch fistula, and the other three underwent this surgery due to the remaining rectal stump, anastomosis stenosis and pouchdysfunction. The average time for when pouch-salvage surgery was performed was 3.5 years (three months to five years) after theinitial operation and the patients were under follow-up care for two to seven years.Conclusions: After performing pouch salvage operation, pouch function was acceptable in all patients and we could closeileostomies of all of them.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".