Flux Rope Modeling of the 2022 September 5 Coronal Mass Ejection Observed by Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter from 0.07 to 0.69 au

As both Parker Solar Probe (PSP) and Solar Orbiter (SolO) reach heliocentric distances closer to the Sun, they present an exciting opportunity to study the structure of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in the inner heliosphere. We present an analysis of the global flux rope structure of the 2022 September 5 CME event that impacted PSP at a heliocentric distance of only 0.07 au and SolO at 0.69 au. We compare in situ measurements at PSP and SolO to determine global and local expansion measures, finding a good agreement between magnetic field relationships with heliocentric distance, but significant differences with respect to flux rope size. We use PSP/Wide-Field Imager for Solar Probe images as input to the ELlipse Evolution model based on Heliospheric Imager data (or ELEvoHI), providing a direct link between remote and in situ observations; we find a large discrepancy between the resulting modeled arrival times, suggesting that the underlying model assumptions may not be suitable when using data obtained close to the Sun, where the drag regime is markedly different in comparison to larger heliocentric distances. Finally, we fit the SolO's magnetometer and PSP's FIELDS data independently with the 3D Coronal ROpe Ejection (or 3DCORE) model, and find that many parameters are consistent between spacecraft. However, challenges are apparent when reconstructing a global 3D structure that aligns with arrival times at PSP and SolO, likely due to the large radial and longitudinal separations between spacecraft. From our model results, it is clear the solar wind background speed and drag regime strongly affect the modeled expansion and propagation of CMEs and need to be taken into consideration

Bowel function and associated risk factors at preschool and early childhood age in children with anorectal malformation type rectovestibular fistula:An ARM-Net consortium study

Background: Outcome of patients operated for anorectal malformation (ARM) type rectovestibular fistula (RVF) is generally considered to be good. However, large multi-center studies are scarce, mostly describing pooled outcome of different ARM-types, in adult patients. Therefore, counseling parents concerning the bowel function at early age is challenging. Aim of this study was to evaluate bowel function of RVF-patients at preschool/early childhood age and determine risk factors for poor functional outcome. Methods: A multi-center cohort study was performed. Patient characteristics, associated anomalies, sacral ratio, surgical procedures, post-reconstructive complications, one-year constipation, and Bowel Function Score (BFS) at 4–7 years of follow-up were registered. Groups with below normal (BFS < 17; subgroups ‘poor’ ≤ 11, and ‘fair’ 11 < BFS < 17) and good outcome (BFS ≥ 17) were formed. Univariable analyses were performed to detect risk factors for outcome. Results: The study included 111 RVF-patients. Median BFS was 16 (range 6–20). The ‘below normal’ group consisted of 61 patients (55.0%). Overall, we reported soiling, fecal accidents, and constipation in 64.9%, 35.1% and 70.3%, respectively. Bowel management was performed in 23.4% of patients. Risk factors for poor outcome were tethered cord and low sacral ratio, while sacral anomalies, low sacral ratio, prior enterostomy, post-reconstructive complications, and one-year constipation were for being on bowel management. Conclusions: Although median BFS at 4–7 year follow-up is nearly normal, the majority of patients suffers from some degree of soiling and constipation, and almost 25% needs bowel management. Several factors were associated with poor bowel function outcome and bowel management. Level of Evidence: Level III

Clinical Differentiation between a Normal Anus, Anterior Anus, Congenital Anal Stenosis, and Perineal Fistula: Definitions and Consequences—The ARM-Net Consortium Consensus

In the past, an anteriorly located anus was often misdiagnosed and treated as an anorectal malformation (ARM) with a perineal fistula (PF). The paper aims to define the criteria for a normal anus, an anterior anus (AA) as an anatomic variant, and milder types of ARM such as congenital anal stenosis (CAS) and PF. An extensive literature search was performed by a working group of the ARM-Net Consortium concerning the subject “Normal Anus, AA, and mild ARM”. A consensus on definitions, clinical characteristics, diagnostic management, and treatment modalities was estab-lished, and a diagnostic algorithm was proposed. The algorithm enables pediatricians, midwives, gynecologists, and surgeons to make a timely correct diagnosis of any abnormally looking anus and initiate further management if needed. Thus, the routine physical inspection of a newborn should include the inspection of the anus and define its position, relation to the external sphincter, and caliber. A correct diagnosis and use of the presented terminology will avoid misclassifications and allow the initiation of correct management. This will provide a reliable comparison of different therapeutic management and outcomes of these patient cohorts in the future

Perineal Groove : An Anorectal Malformation Network, Consortium Study

Objective: To review the Anorectal Malformation Network experience with perineal groove (PG) focusing on its clinical characteristics and management. Study design: Data on patients with PG managed at 10 participating Anorectal Malformation Network centers in 1999-2019 were collected retrospectively by questionnaire. Results: The cohort included 66 patients (65 females) of median age 1.4 months at diagnosis. The leading referral diagnosis was anal fissure (n = 20 [30.3%]): 23 patients (34.8%) had anorectal malformations. Expectant management was practiced in 47 patients (71.2%). Eight (17%) were eventually operated for local complications. The median time to surgery was 14 months (range, 3.0-48.6 months), and the median age at surgery was 18.3 months (range, 4.8-58.0 months). In the 35 patients available for follow-up of the remaining 39 managed expectantly, 23 (65.7%) showed complete or near-complete self-epithelization by a mean age 15.3 months (range, 1-72 months) and 4 (11.4%) showed partial self-epithelization by a mean age 21 months (range, 3-48 months). Eight patients showed no resolution (5 were followed for ≤3 months). Nineteen patients (28.7%) were primarily treated with surgery. In total, 27 patients were operated. Dehiscence occurred in 3 of 27 operated patients (11.1%). Conclusions: PG seems to be an underestimated anomaly, frequently associated with anorectal malformations. Most cases heal spontaneously; therefore, expectant management is recommended. When associated with anorectal malformations requiring reconstruction, PG should be excised in conjunction with the anorectoplasty

Bowel function and associated risk factors at preschool and early childhood age in children with anorectal malformation type rectovestibular fistula: An ARM-Net consortium study

Background: Outcome of patients operated for anorectal malformation (ARM) type rectovestibular fistula (RVF) is generally considered to be good. However, large multi-center studies are scarce, mostly describing pooled outcome of different ARM-types, in adult patients. Therefore, counseling parents concerning the bowel function at early age is challenging. Aim of this study was to evaluate bowel function of RVF-patients at preschool/early childhood age and determine risk factors for poor functional outcome. Methods: A multi-center cohort study was performed. Patient characteristics, associated anomalies, sacral ratio, surgical procedures, post-reconstructive complications, one-year constipation, and Bowel Function Score (BFS) at 4–7 years of follow-up were registered. Groups with below normal (BFS < 17; subgroups ‘poor’ ≤ 11, and ‘fair’ 11 < BFS < 17) and good outcome (BFS ≥ 17) were formed. Univariable analyses were performed to detect risk factors for outcome. Results: The study included 111 RVF-patients. Median BFS was 16 (range 6–20). The ‘below normal’ group consisted of 61 patients (55.0%). Overall, we reported soiling, fecal accidents, and constipation in 64.9%, 35.1% and 70.3%, respectively. Bowel management was performed in 23.4% of patients. Risk factors for poor outcome were tethered cord and low sacral ratio, while sacral anomalies, low sacral ratio, prior enterostomy, post-reconstructive complications, and one-year constipation were for being on bowel management. Conclusions: Although median BFS at 4–7 year follow-up is nearly normal, the majority of patients suffers from some degree of soiling and constipation, and almost 25% needs bowel management. Several factors were associated with poor bowel function outcome and bowel management. Level of Evidence: Level III

Clinical Differentiation between a Normal Anus, Anterior Anus, Congenital Anal Stenosis, and Perineal Fistula: Definitions and Consequences-The ARM-Net Consortium Consensus

In the past, an anteriorly located anus was often misdiagnosed and treated as an anorectal malformation (ARM) with a perineal fistula (PF). The paper aims to define the criteria for a normal anus, an anterior anus (AA) as an anatomic variant, and milder types of ARM such as congenital anal stenosis (CAS) and PF. An extensive literature search was performed by a working group of the ARM-Net Consortium concerning the subject "Normal Anus, AA, and mild ARM". A consensus on definitions, clinical characteristics, diagnostic management, and treatment modalities was established, and a diagnostic algorithm was proposed. The algorithm enables pediatricians, midwives, gynecologists, and surgeons to make a timely correct diagnosis of any abnormally looking anus and initiate further management if needed. Thus, the routine physical inspection of a newborn should include the inspection of the anus and define its position, relation to the external sphincter, and caliber. A correct diagnosis and use of the presented terminology will avoid misclassifications and allow the initiation of correct management. This will provide a reliable comparison of different therapeutic management and outcomes of these patient cohorts in the future