<i>In situ</i> hypothermic liver preservation during radical liver resection with major vascular reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The in situ hypothermic liver preservation technique may allow a more aggressive approach to tumours of the caval confluence and/or all three hepatic veins, which would otherwise be deemed irresectable. METHODS: All descriptive data regarding patient demographics, operative characteristics, perioperative complications and outcomes of nine patients in whom this technique was used were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Seven patients underwent liver trisegmentectomy and two had primary retrohepatic venal caval resection. Total hepatic vascular occlusion with in situ hypothermic liver preservation was used for venous reconstruction in all patients. The vena cava was reconstructed with prosthetic graft in seven patients. All main hepatic veins were reconstructed in the seven liver resections. In situ hypothermic liver preservation was well tolerated as evidenced by preserved hepatic synthetic function early after operation. One patient died 66 days after surgery. There were two recurrences after a median follow-up of 14 (range 2-33) months; local recurrence was identified in one patient after 4 months and distant metastasis in another after 8 months. CONCLUSION: The in situ hypothermic liver preservation technique appears to be a useful adjunct to radical hepatobiliary tumour excision procedures that require total hepatic vascular exclusion and major vascular reconstruction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".