MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025658180 · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3182128869

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Pancreatectomy

2011· article· en· W2025658180 on OpenAlexaff
Clifford S. Cho, David A. Kooby, C. Max Schmidt, Attila Nakeeb, David J. Bentrem, Nipun B. Merchant, Alexander A. Parikh, Ronald C.G. Martin, Charles R. Scoggins, Syed A. Ahmad, Hong Joo Kim, Nicholas Hamilton, William G. Hawkins, Sharon M. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreatic fistulaPerioperativeSplenectomyBody mass indexPancreatectomySurgeryConcomitantDistal pancreatectomyGeneral surgeryInternal medicineGastroenterologyPancreas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) is associated with favorable outcomes compared with open left pancreatectomy (OLP). However, it is unclear if the risk factors associated with operative morbidity differ between these two techniques. Guidelines for determining which patients should undergo OLP versus LLP do not exist. METHODS: A multi-institutional analysis of OLP and LLP performed in 9 academic medical centers was undertaken. LLP cases were defined in an intent-to-treat manner. Perioperative variables were analyzed to identify factors associated with complications and pancreatic fistulae after OLP and LLP. In addition, complication and fistula rates for patients undergoing OLP and LLP were compared in matched cohorts to determine if one approach resulted in superior outcomes over the other. RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety-three left pancreatectomy cases (439 OLP, 254 LLP) were analyzed. OLP and LLP cases were similar with respect to patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Body mass index (BMI) was higher in patients undergoing LLP. OLP was more often performed for adenocarcinoma and larger tumors, resulted in longer resected specimen lengths, and more commonly involved concomitant splenectomy. Estimated blood loss was higher and operative times were longer during OLP. On multivariate analysis, variables associated with major complications and clinically significant fistulae differed between OLP and LLP. Patients with body mass index ≤27, without adenocarcinoma, and with pancreatic specimen length ≤8.5 cm had significantly higher rates of significant fistulae after OLP than after LLP; in contrast, no preoperatively evaluable variables were associated with a higher likelihood of significant fistula after LLP versus OLP. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for complications and pancreatic fistulae after left pancreatectomy differ when open versus laparoscopic techniques are employed. Preoperative characteristics may identify cohorts of patients who will benefit more from LLP, and no patient cohorts had higher postoperative complication rates after LLP than OLP. These observations suggest that LLP may be the operative procedure of choice for most patients with left-sided pancreatic lesions; a more definitive prospective and randomized comparison may be warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.581
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.122 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of SurgerySame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207