Is there a role for pyloric exclusion after severe duodenal trauma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Duodenal trauma is an infrequent injury, but linked to high morbidity and mortality. Surgical management of duodenal injuries is dictated by: patient's hemodynamic status, injury severity, time of diagnosis, and presence of concomitant injuries. Even though most cases can be treated with primary repair, some experts advocate adjuvant procedures. Pyloric exclusion (PE) has emerged as an ancillary method to protect suture repair in more complex injuries. However, the effectiveness of this procedure is debatable. The "Evidence Based Telemedicine - Trauma & Acute Care Surgery" (EBT-TACS) Journal Club performed a critical appraisal of the literature and selected three relevant publications on the indications for PE in duodenal trauma. The first study retrospectively compared 14 cases of duodenal injuries greater than grade II treated by PE, with 15 cases repaired primarily, all of which penetrating. Results showed that PE did not improve outcome. The second study, also retrospective, compared primary repair (34 cases) with PE (16 cases) in blunt and penetrating grade > II duodenal injuries. The authors concluded that PE was not necessary in all cases. The third was a literature review on the management of challenging duodenal traumas. The author of that study concluded that PE is indicated for anastomotic leak management after gastrojejunostomies. In conclusion, the choice of the surgical procedure to treat duodenal injuries should be individualized. Moreover, there is insufficient high quality scientific evidence to support the abandonment of PE in severe duodenal injuries with extensive tissue loss.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".