Revisiting the biofragmentable anastomotic ring: is it safe in colonic surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of the biofragmentable anastomotic ring (BAR) has been reported in the literature with good results. Our purpose in this review was to document the clinical outcomes after gastrointestinal anastomoses performed with use of the BAR. METHODS: Data were gathered systematically through chart review with the help of data collection forms from 159 patients who underwent 173 intestinal anastomoses performed with use of the BAR between 1992 and 1999. Of the 165 patients who had anastomoses (6 had 2 anastomoses constructed on separate occasions and were considered separately), 23 (13.9%) had surgery with anastomosis under emergency conditions, and 44 (26.7%) were steroid-dependent patients. The indications for surgery were malignant disease in 63 (38.2%) patients, inflammatory bowel disease in 54 (32.7%) patients, diverticular disease in 13 (7.9%) patients and other conditions in 35 (21.2%) patients. RESULTS: A clinical anastomotic leak developed in the first 2 weeks after surgery in 7 (4.2%) patients, 6 of whom required reoperation. All recovered well, withno deaths related to use of the BAR. Early small-bowel obstruction developed in 13 patients (7.9%), none of whom required reoperation. The average postoperative length of hospital stay was 9.0 days, the average time to pass the first flatus was 3.2 days, and the average time to begin oral fluid intake was 3.3 days. The rate of leakage at the anastomosis in our series was comparable to that found in randomized trials with the BAR (2.0%-4.4%) and as reported with hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses (1.9%-8.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that use of the BAR is safe and effective in both elective and emergent surgery. The rate of leakage is comparable to that reported in the literature when a BAR is used.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".