Biliary complications in pediatric liver transplantation: Incidence and management over a decade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed how features of a liver graft and the technique of biliary reconstruction interact to affect biliary complications in pediatric liver transplantation. A retrospective analysis was performed of data collected from 2001 to 2011 in a single high-volume North American pediatric transplant center. The study cohort comprised 173 pediatric recipients, 75 living donor (LD) and 98 deceased donor (DD) recipients. The median follow-up was 70 months. Twenty-nine (16.7%) patients suffered a biliary complication. The majority of leaks (9/12, 75.0%) and the majority of strictures (18/22, 81.8%) were anastomotic. There was no difference in the rate of biliary complications associated with DD (18.4%) and LD (14.7%) grafts (P = 0.55). Roux-en-Y (RY) reconstruction was associated with a significantly lower rate of biliary complications compared to duct-to-duct reconstruction (13.3% versus 28.2%, respectively; P = 0.048). RY anastomosis was the only significant factor protecting from biliary complications in our population (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.85). The leaks were managed primarily by relaparotomy (10/12, 83.3%), and the majority of strictures were managed by percutaneous biliary intervention (14/22, 63.6%). Patients suffering biliary complications had inferior graft survival (P = 0.04) at 1, 5, and 10 years compared to patients without biliary complications. Our analysis demonstrates a lower incidence of biliary complications with RY biliary reconstruction, and patients with biliary complications have decreased graft survival.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".