The esophageal remnant after gastric interposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastric interposition is usually considered the reconstruction of choice following esophageal resection. However, a number of reports show that esophagectomy followed by a gastric transplant is associated with poor quality of life and significant reflux esophagitis in the esophageal remnant. The aim of this work is to review the factors affecting the mucosa of the esophageal remnant when using the stomach. A Medline was conducted. Additional references and search pathways were sourced from the references of reviewed articles. Reflux disease is considered an unavoidable consequence of esophageal resection followed by gastric interposition. Mucosal damage from acid and bile exposure in the esophageal remnant affects approximatively 50% of these patients. There is usually no correlation between symptoms and the presence of mucosal damage in the remaining esophagus. Endoscopy and endoscopic biopsies are the only reliable methods to document the status of the mucosa. When present, reflux esophagitis shows a progression from inflammation to erosions and to the development of columnar lined metaplasia. Esophageal and gastric function, gastric drainage operation, level of the anastomosis, route of reconstruction, and patients' position after the operation have all been shown to influence the severity and extent of damage in the esophageal remnant. Prevention and treatment of esophagitis in the remaining esophagus are discussed. When the stomach is used as a substitute to reconstruct the esophagus whether for malignant or benign conditions, an in vivo model of reflux diseases is created. Studies using this model may help clarify molecular and cellular events that lead to irreversible insult on the esophageal mucosa. Improvement to the reconstruction itself must be sought to favor better results with the gastric transplant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".