Long‐term outcome of stenting as a bridge to surgery for acute left‐sided malignant colonic obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to evaluate both the short- and long-term outcomes associated with colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery in patients with obstructing adenocarcinoma of the colon. METHOD: Patients with potentially curable acute left-sided colonic obstruction treated with stenting as a bridge to surgery (n = 28) or with emergency surgical resection (n = 39) from January 1998 to December 2008 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Short-term data on postoperative mortality, morbidity, necessity of intensive care and length of hospital stay were compared. Overall survival and disease-free survival were also analysed. RESULTS: Patients in the two study arms had similar demographic profiles. Those receiving preoperative stenting had a higher likelihood of a laparoscopic resection (P < 0.001). The emergency surgery group had a higher rate of postoperative complications (P = 0.024), rate of intensive care unit admission (P = 0.013) and longer total length of hospital stay (9 vs 12 days, P = 0.001). With a median follow-up of 26.5 and 31.3 months for the stenting and surgical resection groups, there was no difference in overall and disease-free survival (overall survival 30 vs 31 months, P = 0.858; disease-free survival 13 vs 12 months, P = 0.989). There was no difference in the rate of systemic recurrence (8 vs 13, P = 0.991). CONCLUSION: Stenting as a bridge to surgery is a safe strategy for acute left-sided colonic obstruction with improved short-term outcome and comparable long-term oncological results.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".