Laparoscopic management of gastrointestinal stromal tumours: review at a Canadian centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic wedge resection has been widely accepted for small benign gastric tumours. Large gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs), however, can be difficult to manipulate laparoscopically and are at risk for capsule disruption, which can then result in peritoneal seeding. Some authors have suggested that large GISTs (> 8 cm) are best approached using an open technique. However, there has been no consensus as to what the cut-off size should be. We conducted one of the largest Canadian series to date to assess outcomes and follow-up of the laparoscopic management of GISTs. METHODS: All patients with gastric GISTs presenting to Vancouver General Hospital and University of British Columbia Hospital between 2000 and 2008 were reviewed. Most lesions were resected using a wedge technique with closure of the stomach facilitated by an endoscopic linear stapling device. RESULTS: In all, 23 patients presented with GISTs; 19 patients underwent laparoscopic resection and, of these, 15 had a purely laparoscopic operation and 4 had a hand-assisted laparoscopic resection. Mean tumour size was 3.2 cm, with the largest tumour measuring 6.8 cm. There were no episodes of tumour rupture or spillage and no major intraoperative complications. All margins were negative. Mean follow-up was 13.3 (range 1-78) months. There was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic management of gastric GISTs is safe and effective with short hospital stays and good results over a mean follow-up of 13.3 months. We believe that it should be the preferred technique offered to patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".