Gastric Decompression and Enteral Feeding Through a Double-Lumen Gastrojejunostomy Tube Improves Outcomes After Pancreaticoduodenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of inserting a double-lumen gastrojejunostomy tube (GJT) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and to evaluate associated outcomes. BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis is a frequent postoperative event following PD. This often necessitates prolonged gastric decompression and nutritional support. A double-lumen GJT may be particularly useful in this situation: gastric decompression may be achieved through the gastric port without a nasogastric tube; enteral feeding may be administered through the jejunal port. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with periampullary tumors were randomized at the time of PD to insertion of GJT or to the routine care of the operating surgeon. Outcomes, including length of stay, complications, and costs, were followed prospectively. RESULTS: The 2 groups had similar characteristics. Prolonged gastroparesis occurred in 4 controls (25%) and in none of the patients who had a GJT (P = 0.03). Complication rates were similar in each group. Mean postoperative length of stay was significantly longer in controls compared with patients who had a GJT (15.8 +/- 7.8 days versus 11.5 +/- 2.9 days, respectively; P = 0.01). Hospital charges were 82,151 +/- 56,632 dollars in controls and 52,589 +/- 15,964 dollars in the GJT group (P = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PD, insertion of a GJT is safe. Moreover, insertion of a GJT improves average length of stay. At the time of resection of periampullary tumors, GJT insertion should be considered, especially given this is a patient population in which weight loss and cachexia are frequent.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".