Outcome and Complications of Rectal Tube Placement in Intestinal Obstruction Due to Sigmoid Volvulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The most common site of colon volvulus is in the sigmoid colon and then in the cecum and transverse colon. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of the rectal tube placement as an initial treatment for devaluation of sigmoid volvulus. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 60 patients with sigmoid volvulus admitted to the emergency department of Imam Reza and Sina Teaching Hospitals due to intestinal obstruction were undergone blind rectal tube placement. After discharge, patients were followed up in two 1 month and 6 months intervals, so the rate of recovery, relapse, or mortality of the patient (in case of the patient’s death) were investigated. Results: Of the 60 patients reported, 41 patients (68.3%) were male, 54 patients (90%) the operation was successful and the patient was devaluated, but in the remaining 6 patients (10%) the operation was not successful and the patient immediately underwent an operation. The number of attempts to devaluation of patients with the rectal tube was once in 50 patients (83.3%), twice in 2 cases (3.3%) and three times in 8 cases (13.3%). The rate of hospitalization after surgery (in patients who had undergone surgery) was 6.44 ± 0.9 days. The overall rate of hospitalization in patients with sigmoid volvulus with initial treatment by rectal tube placement to devaluation was 5.78 ± 0.96 day. Conclusion: We suggested that rectal tube placement is less costly and available procedure in the treatment of patients with sigmoid volvulus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".