Effects of adding Braun jejunojejunostomy to standard Whipple procedure on reduction of afferent loop syndrome — a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whipple surgery (pancreaticodeudenectomy) has a high complication rate. We aimed to evaluate whether adding Braun jejunojejunostomy (side-to-side anastomosis of afferent and efferent loops distal to the gastrojejunostomy site) to a standard Whipple procedure would reduce postoperative complications. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing patients who underwent standard Whipple surgery (standard group) and patients who underwent standard Whipple surgery with Braun jejunojejunostomy (Braun group). Patients were followed for 1 month after the procedure and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: Our study included 30 patients: 15 in the Braun and 15 in the standard group. In the Braun group, 4 (26.7%) patients experienced 6 complications, whereas in the standard group, 7 (46.7%) patients experienced 11 complications (p = 0.14). Complications in the Braun group were gastrointestinal bleeding and wound infection (n = 1 each) and delayed gastric emptying and pulmonary infection (n = 2 each). Complications in the standard group were death, pancreatic anastomosis leak and biliary anastomosis leak (n = 1 each); gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 2); and afferent loop syndrome and delayed gastric emptying (n = 3 each). There was no significant difference between groups in the subtypes of complications. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that adding Braun jejunojejunostomy to standard Whipple procedure was associated with lower rates of afferent loop syndrome and delayed gastric emptying. However, more studies are needed to define the role of Braun jejunojejunostomy in this regard. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT2014020316473N1 (www.irct.ir).
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".