Anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of thoracic and cervical anastomoses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Esophagogastric anastomotic leaks remain a significant problem after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Many investigators have reported that leaks are more frequent after cervical, as opposed to thoracic, esophagogastric anastomoses. We conducted a retrospective review to assess the effect of anastomotic location (thoracic or cervical) on anastomotic leak incidence and severity. METHODS: Seventy-four consecutive patients with esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy and esophagogastric anastomoses at our institution over a four-year period. Their charts were reviewed retrospectively and data was collected on age, gender, histology, stage, resection margin status, adjuvant therapy, cancer survival, anastomotic location, anastomotic leaks, and operative mortality. RESULTS: Cervical anastomoses were done in 19 patients and thoracic anastomoses were done in the other 55 patients. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, histology, stage, adjuvant therapy, and overall survival. Operative mortality for the entire group of 74 patients was 4% (3 patients). Resection margins were positive for residual tumor in 2 of 19 (11%) patients with cervical anastomoses and 9 of 55 (16%) patients with thoracic anastomoses (p=0.42). Leaks complicated 1 of 19 (5%) cervical and 9 of 55 (16%) thoracic esophagogastric anastomoses (p=0.21). Positive resection margins and anastomotic leaks were not significantly related (p=0.54). One of 9 (11%) leaks in the thoracic group proved fatal. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience cervical esophagogastric anastomoses do not have a higher incidence of leaks than thoracic anastomoses.
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) | 0.001 | 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".