Laparoscopic Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy in the Management of Traumatic Pancreatic Disruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Traumatic pancreatic transection is uncommon. The role of laparoscopy in the setting of this injury has not been well described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six large-volume pediatric trauma centers contributed patients <18 years of age who underwent a distal pancreatectomy for traumatic pancreatic transection from 2000 to 2010. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients without another indication for emergency laparotomy underwent a distal pancreatectomy for Grade III pancreatic injuries, of which 7 underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Mean (±SD) age was 8.6±4.7 years, and 67% were male. There was no difference in the presence of other injuries between the two groups (43% in each group). Computed tomography revealed a transected pancreas in 85% of the laparoscopic patients and 75% of the open group (P=1.0). Mean operative time was 218±101 minutes with laparoscopy compared with 195±111 minutes with the open procedure (P=.7). Median duration of hospitalization was 6 days (range, 6-18 days) in the laparoscopic group compared with 11 days (range, 5-26 days) in the open group (P=0.3). Postoperative morbidity was not different between the two groups (57% versus 21% for laparoscopic versus open, P=.2). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is equivalent to open distal pancreatectomy in children with select traumatic pancreatic injuries.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".