Freehand Resection of a Stoma Polyp Using Endoscopic-Based Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CASE REPORT Colon polyps originating at stoma sites are a rare entity. In this report, we describe a unique case of an adenomatous stoma polyp that was resected without sedation using simplified endoscopic-based techniques. Informed consent was previously obtained from the patient. A 64-year-old woman with a medical history of recently diagnosed stage IIIB rectal cancer underwent an emergent diverting colostomy at an outside hospital for a lower bowel obstruction. On follow-up, the patient was found to have a polyp originating from the colonic mucosa at the ostomy opening. The patient was referred to our service for endoscopic resection of the polyp. The polyp was not reported in the diverting colostomy operating room report. The patient was placed supine, and the stoma bag was removed. The polyp was pulled and exposed and appeared pedunculated, approximately 3 cm long, with a 1 cm thick stalk. The colonoscope was inserted through the stoma and confirmed normal residual colon examination to the level of the cecum. Two 22 mm clips were placed at the base of the stalk using a freehand technique while applying gentle retraction of the polyp. Subsequently, a 20 mm stiff hot snare was positioned above the clips at the base of the stalk. The patient was grounded, and the polyp was resected. Afterward, the post-polypectomy site was inspected carefully. There was no bleeding or perforation, and the procedure was well tolerated. The pathological examination showed tubulovillous adenoma with multifocal high-grade dysplasia. The resection margin was free of adenoma. The patient was treated with total neoadjuvant therapy and is being evaluated for laparoscopic low anterior resection and takedown of loop-diverting colostomy. Stoma polyps are very rare and are, therefore, seldom reported in the literature. This case describes a simplified technique for removing polyps at the stoma site by gastroenterologists using endoscopy-based techniques (Figure 1; Video 1).Figure 1.: The polyp was pulled and exposed (A, B) outside the stoma, and resection was performed (C) as shown in the video. No bleeding or complications post polypectomy (D). {"href":"Single Video Player","role":"media-player-id","content-type":"play-in-place","position":"float","orientation":"portrait","label":"Video 1","caption":"Video describing the case with operating room footage of the procedure and stoma polyp.","object-id":[{"pub-id-type":"doi","id":""},{"pub-id-type":"other","content-type":"media-stream-id","id":"1_df4oasrv"},{"pub-id-type":"other","content-type":"media-source","id":"Kaltura"}]} DISCLOSURES Author contributions: P. Vazirnia created and edited video, wrote manuscript. S. Shah, R. Muthusamy, F. Bahdi provided final review and approval of manuscript and video. D. Dawson reviewed and interpreted the pathology. A. Y. Lin was responsible for final review and approval of manuscript and video along with S. Shah, R. Muthusamy, and F. Bahdi. D. Issa performed procedure, reviewed video and manuscript, and is the article guarantor. Financial disclosure: None to report. Previous presentation: This case was presented at the ACG 2023 Annual Scientific Meeting; October 20-25, 2023; at the Vancouver Convention Centre in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Informed consent was obtained for this case report.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".