Evaluation of colorectal surgeons’ approaches to ileal pouch–anal anastomosis in ulcerative colitis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become the standard of care for elective surgery for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there are different surgical techniques and several patient variations affecting their outcomes. The aim of this international multicenter study is to assess the approaches of colorectal surgeons toward IPAA procedures. Methods: Thirty colorectal surgeons practicing in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Oman were asked to complete a questionnaire on their knowledge of indications, complications of IPAA, and practice in selecting stoma versus restorative IPAA for patients with UC. Results: Around 83.3% ( n = 25) of participants were affiliated with academic tertiary hospitals and 66.7% ( n = 20) had an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) multidisciplinary board at their center. Regarding colorectal surgery fellowship, Author 2: 63.3% ( n = 19) of participants were trained abroad (USA, Canada, Korea, Belgium, France, Germany, and UK) and 36.6% ( n = 11) were trained in Saudi Arabia.. Most surgeons performed IPAA independently in their practice (73.3%, n = 22), with an average of 10–20 IBD surgeries per year (50%, n = 15). All the participants agreed that IPAA is indicated in UC patients, while only 5.9% ( n = 1) of participants said that they would perform IPAA for indeterminate colitis. Most of the cohort (70.6%, n = xx) routinely performed two-stage IPAA, while only 29.4% ( n = xx) of participants would routinely perform three-stage IPAA. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates that IPAA is a popular option to improve the quality of life with patients who are required to have surgical treatment. However, there is a need for a multidisciplinary approach to create sustainable outcomes for every patient’s variation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".