A multi‐centre randomized controlled trial of open <i>vs</i> closed management of the rectal defect after transanal endoscopic microsurgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a technically challenging strategy that allows expanded indications for local excision of rectal lesions. Transluminal suturing is difficult, so open management of the resultant defect is appealing. Expert opinion suggests there is more pain when the defect is left open. The aim of this study was to determine if closure of the defect created during full thickness excision of rectal lesions with TEM leads to less postoperative pain compared to leaving the defect open. METHOD: At the time of surgery, patients undergoing a full thickness TEM were randomized to sutured (TEM-S) or open (TEM-O) management of the rectal defect. At five Canadian academic colorectal surgery centres, experienced TEM surgeons enrolled patients ≥ 18 years treated by full thickness TEM. The primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by the visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain medication use and 30-day postoperative complications, including bleeding, infection and hospital readmission. RESULTS: Between March 2012 and October 2013, 50 patients were enrolled and randomized to sutured (TEM-S, n = 28) or open (TEM-O, n = 22) management of the rectal defect. There was no difference between the two study groups in postoperative pain on postoperative day 1 (2.8 vs 2.6, P = 0.76), day 3 (2.8 vs 2.1, P = 0.23) and day 7 (2.8 vs 1.7, P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: In this multicentre randomized controlled trial, there was no difference in postoperative pain between sutured or open defect management in patients having a full thickness excision with TEM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".