A comparative study between Santulli ileostomy and loop ileostomy in neonates with meconium ileus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meconium ileus is a common cause of intestinal obstruction in neonates that different surgical methods have been described for its management such as Santulli and loop ileostomy. AIM: To evaluate and compare clinical efficacy of Santulli and loop ileostomy in neonates with meconium ileus. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 58 patients with meconium ileus were evaluated. After analyses of hospital records, 53 patients with completed hospital records were included. Demographic information, surgery parameters and postoperative complications were extracted from the hospital records or calling parents. RESULTS: Skin excoriation (21.4% vs. 84%, p<0.001), ostomy prolapsed (0 vs. 28%, p=0.003), and surgical site infection (7.1% vs. 28%, p=0.044) was significantly lower in Santulli ileostomy group. Furthermore, ileostomy output in first week (70.53±15.11 ml vs. 144.6±19.99 ml, p<0.001) and in 4th week (2.14±4.98 ml vs. 18.4±17.95 ml, p<0.001) was significantly lower in Santulli ileostomy group as compared to loop ileostomy group. Finally, hospital stay in Santulli ileostomy group was 12±2.34 and in loop ileostomy 14.24±1.47 days (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Santulli ileostomy is better than loop ileostomy due to significant less frequency of surgical site infection, skin excoriation, prolapse of ostomy, ileostomy volume output and hospitalization time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".