Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Is Intracorporeal Anastomosis Feasible? A Retrospective Cohort Comparison Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects all ages and backgrounds, and many individuals require surgical intervention during their disease course. The adoption of laparoscopic techniques in this patient population has been slow, including intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The aim of our study was to determine if ICA was feasible and safe in patients with IBD undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRHC). Methods: This is a retrospective, single institution cohort study of elective and emergent cases of LRHC at a single academic center. Patients included underwent LRHC or ileocolic resection for IBD. Exclusion criteria: conversion to laparotomy, resection without anastomosis, or unconfirmed diagnosis of IBD. Main outcomes studied were anastomotic leak rate, surgical site infection (SSI), postoperative length of stay, 30-day readmission/reoperation, and operative time. Secondary outcomes were incisional hernia rates and rates of disease recurrence. Results: A total of 70 patients were included, 12 underwent ICA and 58 extracorporeal anastomosis. Anastomotic leak rate (intracorporeal 8.3% [ n = 1], extracorporeal 8.6% [ n = 5], P = .97), and SSI rates (intracorporeal 0%, extracorporeal 6.9% [ n = 4], P = .36) were similar. Mean postoperative length of stay, rates of 30-day readmission/reoperation and diagnosis of hernia at 1 year were not significantly different. Rates of IBD recurrence and location of recurrence at 1 year were similar. However, operative time was significantly longer in those undergoing ICA (intracorporeal 187 minutes versus extracorporeal 139 minutes, P = < .05). Conclusions: ICA is a safe option in patients with IBD undergoing LRHC.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".