In search of the best reconstructive technique after pancreaticoduodenectomy: pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) is a safer reconstruction than pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ), resulting in lower morbidity, including lower pancreatic leak rates and decreased postoperative mortality. We compared PJ and PG after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was designed. It was stopped with 50% accrual. Patients underwent either PG or PJ reconstruction. The primary outcome was the pancreatic fistula rate, and the secondary outcomes were overall morbidity and mortality. We used the Student t, Mann-Whitney U and χ(2) tests for intention to treat analysis. The effect of randomization, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, soft pancreatic texture and use of pancreatic stent on overall complications and fistula rates was calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Our trial included 98 patients. The rate of pancreatic fistula formation was 18% in the PJ and 25% in the PG groups (p = 0.40). Postoperative complications occurred in 48% of patients in the PJ and 58% in the PG groups (p = 0.31). There were no significant predictors of overall complications in the multivariate analysis. Only soft pancreatic gland predicted the occurrence of pancreatic fistula (odds ratio 5.89, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in the rates of pancreatic leak/fistula, overall complications or mortality between patients undergoing PG and and those undergoing PJ after PD.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".