MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109819222

Treatment of esophageal achalasia with Heller myotomy: retrospective evaluation of patient satisfaction and disease-specific quality of life.

2006· article· en· W2109819222 on OpenAlexaff
Yen Dang, Dale Mercer

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAchalasiaDysphagiaMyotomyEsophageal dilatationAspiration pneumoniaHeartburnEsophagusHeller myotomyChest painEsophageal motility disorderSurgeryMegaesophagusGastroenterologyInternal medicineDiseasePneumoniaReflux
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized studies have suggested that surgery palliates esophageal achalasia more effectively than pneumatic dilatation, but for some dilatation is still the procedure of choice for initial treatment. We decided to compare achalasia symptoms before and after Heller myotomy by means of postoperative questionnaires. METHODS: The study included 22 patients who underwent Heller myotomy for achalasia at the Hotel Dieu Hospital, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont., since July 1990; 5 of them required repeat myotomy for symptom recurrence, for a total of 9 open and 18 laparoscopic procedures. Median follow-up was 43 (range 6-109) months. Preoperative and postoperative data regarding dysphagia, regurgitation, chest pain and overall patient satisfaction were gathered. Symptom scores were calculated by adding severity (0 = none, 2 = mild, 4 = moderate, 6 = severe) to frequency (0 = never, 1 = occasionally, 2 = once a month, 3 = every week, 4 = twice a week, 5 = daily). Patients having a repeat procedure were instructed to evaluate symptoms with respect to their initial myotomy. RESULTS: Seventeen (77%) patients were successfully contacted, 4 of them had subsequent repeat myotomy for symptom recurrence. Initially, overall symptom scores decreased for all but 1 patient, with mean preoperative and postoperative values of 23.1 and 7.3 respectively (p < 0.001). The patient in whom symptoms did not improve is a candidate for a repeat procedure. Repeat myotomy was performed after a median of 38 (range 23-75) months, corresponding to an overall 3-year positive outcome in 13 (76%) of the 17 patients. Fifteen (88%) patients considered their myotomies a success and 16 (94%) would choose to have this procedure again given the outcome. CONCLUSION: Heller myotomy appears to be effective in alleviating the symptoms of achalasia. Repeat myotomy is occasionally required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207