Electrocautery effect on intestinal vascularisation in a murine model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of electrocautery devices is associated with complications such as perforation or fistulisation when used near intestinal structures. This is likely due to its effect on vascularisation of the bowel wall. To test this hypothesis we established a murine model to quantify the effect of electrocautery injury on the intestinal microvascularisation. METHODS: Sprague-Dawley rats were subjected to five electrocautery injuries on the small bowel in coagulation mode (30 W intensity) and in cut mode (40 W, 80 W and 200 W intensities) for durations of 1, 2 and 5 s. 5 mg/kg of fluorescein was injected intravenously, the injured bowel segments harvested and the rat sacrificed. The segments were analysed to measure the fluorescence of injured bowel compared to adjacent unharmed tissue. RESULTS: A significant decrease in bowel wall microvascularisation occurred with increasing intensity (coag 30 W/cut 40 W versus cut 200 W 1 s: p < 0.05) and duration of electrocautery injury (cut 40 W 1/2 s versus 5 s: p < 0.05). There was a 40% perforation rate when decreased bowel wall microvascularisation was 25% or more. Despite similar electrocautery injury, a significantly greater microvascularisation decrease was observed in jejunum compared to ileum (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We successfully established a murine model to quantify the decrease of bowel wall microvascularisation associated with electrocautery use. Unsurprisingly, the decrease in microvascularisation is greater with higher intensity and duration of electrocautery and is associated with more perforations in the experimental model. The jejunum seems more vulnerable to electrocautery injury than the ileum. These observations support caution when using electrocautery devices near intestinal structures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".