Comparison between orogastric tube/bougie and a suction calibration system for effects on operative duration, staple-line corkscrewing, and esophageal perforation during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Placement of a bougie for sleeve sizing during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is recommended. We compared this standard with a suction calibration system (SCS) that performs all functions with one insertion, and measured each step's duration. METHODS: Primary LSG was performed using a bougie and SCS in alternating order. Number of tube movements to achieve optimal placement, durations of decompression, leak testing, and overall operative time, and remnant linear measurements were obtained. RESULTS: LSG was performed in 26 patients (15 women, 11 men; mean age 36.8 years; mean BMI 45.3 kg/m(2)). The mean number of tube movements was significantly greater for the bougie than for the SCS (8.13 vs. 3.58; p < 0.0001). Percent reductions achieved using the SCS were: time to full decompression of the stomach, 62% (21 vs. 8 s; p < 0.138); tube placement, 51% (101 vs. 49 s; p < 0.0001); leak testing, 78% (119 vs. 26 s; p < 0.0003); and mean operative duration (from tube insertion to end of stapling), 21% (875 vs. 697 s; p < 0.019). Variance of the staple-line distance, measured from the greater curvature to the staple line, was 1.64 and 0.92 for the bougie and SCS, respectively, indicating a reduction in corkscrewing, for a 43.9% straighter sleeve. CONCLUSION: SCS maintained the gastric wall in place, thereby preventing corkscrewing, and reducing total operating time. Reducing the number of tube insertions may prevent esophageal damage and accidental tube stapling.
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".