Comparison between Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy And Lord’s Operation for Chronic Anal Fissure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Anal fissure is an elongated ulcer in lower anal canal which presents with severe perianal pain during and after defecation with red streaks of blood. Chronic anal fissure is a fissure for more than six weeks with a skin tag (sentinel tag). Surgical options include Lord's dilatation of anus, lateral internal sphincterotomy (LIS) and posterior anal flap. Aims & Objectives: To compare LIS and Lord's operation in cases of chronic anal fissure in terms of occurrence of incontinence. Place and duration of study: Department of General Surgery, Ayub Teaching Hospital Abbottabad from September 2018 to March 2019. Material & Methods: This quasi-experimental study was carried on 92 patients with anal fissure. By convenience (non- probability) sampling patients were divided into two equal groups of 46 patients as group A for LIS and group B for Lord's dilatation. Data was collected on a structured proforma and analyzed using SPSS 20. Results: Flatus incontinence was observed in 1 (1.1%) fecal incontinence was in 11 (12.0%). Flatus incontinence occurred in 1 (1.1%) patient of group A while no flatus incontinence was reported in patients of group B. Fecal incontinence is observed in 10 (10.9%) patients with group A while 1(1.1%) of patients in group B had fecal incontinence. The result was significant with chi square value 9.614 and p value 0.008. Conclusion: Lord's dilatation is a better procedure than Lateral internal sphincterotomy in terms of fecal incontinence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".