Volume Reduction Surgery Impairs Immediate Postoperative Pulmonary Function in Canine Emphysema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: In severe pulmonary emphysema, lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) improves pulmonary function over a 2-yr period in selected patients. However, the changes in lung function and maximal flow (Vmax) occurring immediately postoperatively are not clear and may contribute to the high morbidity observed. In the present study, we used a chronic canine model of upper lobe emphysema to address this question. METHODS: Bilateral upper lobe emphysema was produced by the intrabronchial administration of papain. Measurements were made before and immediately after LVRS was performed. A vacuum-assisted surgical system (VALR Surgical System; Spiration, Redmond, WA) that deploys a compression sleeve over portions of the disease tissue was used to produce LVRS. Changes in Vmax were interpreted in terms of the wave-speed theory of flow limitation in which a pressure sensor was placed into the airway to determine the site of limitation and intrabronchial pressures. RESULTS: In the emphysema group, total lung capacity postemphysema increased to approximately 20% above the preemphysema value, whereas Vmax was reduced as compared with a control group. After LVRS, tidal respiratory compliance and Vmax decreased, whereas lung elastic recoil and frictional resistance increased in both the emphysema and control groups as compared with presurgery. CONCLUSION: The acute effect of LVRS leads to an impairment in lung mechanical properties. These changes could contribute to ventilatory complications, including the difficulty of weaning patients from mechanical ventilation and the mortality observed from this procedure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".