<i>Ex Vivo</i>Comparison of the Biomechanical Properties of Hand‐Sewn and Stapled Jejunoileal Anastomoses in Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare bursting strength, construction time, and anastomotic dimensions of 4 jejunoileal anastomotic techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental ex vivo study. ANIMALS: Adult horses (n = 12). METHODS: Jejunoileal anastomoses were constructed from harvested ileal and distal jejunal segments using a single-layer Lembert technique (1HS), double-layer simple continuous/Cushing technique (2HS), stapled side-to-side technique (SS), or stapled functional end-to-end technique (FEE). Anastomotic construction time was recorded. Bursting pressures (BP), bursting wall tension (BWT), percentage of mean anastomotic luminal diameter reduction, percentage of luminal diameter reduction relative to adjacent ileal and jejunal diameters and stomal length, were calculated. RESULTS: FEE had the shortest construction time. BP of 1HS and 2HS was significantly higher than FEE and SS (P < .001), which were not different from each other (P = .67). There were no significant differences in BP (P = .25) and BWT (P = .21) between 1HS and 2HS. Mean luminal diameter reduction was less for 1HS (25.1%) than for 2HS (34.8%), however, not statistically different (P = .12). Luminal diameter reduction relative to ileal diameter was significantly less for 1HS (15.2%) than for 2HS (28.47%; P = .012). Luminal diameter reduction relative to jejunal diameter was less for 1HS (32.4%) than 2HS (44.6%) but not statistically different; P = .07). Stomal length was significantly larger for SS (9.93 cm) than FEE (7.32 cm; P = .0002). CONCLUSION: 1HS and 2HS jejunoileal anastomosis are equal in strength; however, 1HS results in less relative luminal diameter reduction. SS and FEE have comparable strength but fail at significantly lower BPs than hand-sewn jejunoileal anastomoses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".