MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791189417 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000001045

Draining Setons as Definitive Management of Fistula-in-Ano

2018· article· en· W2791189417 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwatomilayo Daodu, Julia O’Keefe, J. Heine

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFistulaSurgeryColorectal surgeryAnal fistulaRetrospective cohort studyTelephone interviewAbdominal surgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The ideal management for fistula-in-ano would resolve the disease while preserving anal continence. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of draining seton alone in achieving resolution or significant amelioration of symptoms for patients with fistula-in-ano. DESIGN: This was a retrospective case series involving chart review and telephone interviews. A single colorectal surgeon performed surgeries between June 1, 2005, and June 30, 2014. SETTINGS: The study was conducted by a single surgeon in a large urban city. PATIENTS: Patient ≥18 years of age presenting with fistula-in-ano of cryptoglandular origin were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution of symptoms or significant symptom improvement requiring no additional surgical management and rate of recurrence were measured. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients (53 men) met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 45 years (range, 19-73 y). The average time to seton removal was 36.6 weeks (range, 6.0-188.0 wk). Mean follow-up was 63 months (range, 7-121 mo). Fifty-seven patients (75%) were reached for telephone interview. Fifty-six patients (73.7%) had complete symptom resolution, and 14 (18.4%) had significant amelioration of symptoms with no additional surgical management required. Six (7.9%) had persistent severe symptoms. Five (7.1%) had a recurrence after seton removal. Rates of symptom resolution and recurrence were similar between patients whose setons were removed before or after 26 weeks (median time of seton removal) from the time of placement. Twenty-one patients (27.6%) required 1 or more additional operative procedures before planned seton removal to unroof a collection and/or replace the seton, and this represented the most significant risk factor for failure of resolution or improvement or recurrence (relative risk = 7.0). LIMITATIONS: This study was retrospective and represents a single surgeon experience. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of draining seton alone is a viable treatment option for definitive symptomatic management of fistula-in-ano. Because draining setons are sphincter and function preserving, their use should be considered as primary management for fistula-in-ano. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A552.

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 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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the Colon & RectumSame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207