Endoscopic stapling versus external transcervical approach for the treatment of Zenker diverticulum.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare endoscopic stapling versus external transcervical approaches in the treatment of Zenker diverticulum. DESIGN: A 10-year retrospective institutional review was performed to identify all patients treated for Zenker diverticulum. SETTING: Academic tertiary care centre. METHODS: Patients treated surgically for Zenker diverticulum were identified through an electronic records search. Patient charts were reviewed, and patients were interviewed at follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient age, sex, duration of symptoms, procedural time, time to oral liquids, length of posttreatment hospital stay, and post procedure patient satisfaction were recorded and compared. RESULTS: Ten patients treated endoscopically were compared with eight patients treated via an external approach. There were no significant differences in patient age, sex, and duration of symptoms. The external technique took significantly longer (110.88 +/- 59.61 minutes) than the staple technique (19.50 +/- 6.47 minutes) (p < .0001). There was no significant difference in time to full oral liquids (p = .11). The postsurgical hospital stay (4.71 +/- 1.98 days) was significantly longer for the external technique compared with the staple technique (2.30 +/- 2.83) (p = .03). Patient symptom relief was reported as completely resolved or improved in all cases, regardless of treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic stapling of Zenker diverticulum achieves operative success and patient satisfaction comparable to those of traditional external transcervical techniques, with significantly decreased operative times and hospital stays, allowing for more efficient use of resources.
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) | 0.000 | 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".