MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418941039 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i32.9656

Systematic review of anastomotic complications of esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy

2015· review· en· W2418941039 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mikito Inokuchi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnastomosisGastrectomyIncidence (geometry)StenosisSurgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To investigate the anastomotic complications of esophagojejunostomy (EJS) after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), we reviewed retrospective studies. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed for studies published from January 1, 1994 through January 31, 2015. The search terms included "laparoscopic," "total gastrectomy," and "gastric cancer." First, we selected 16 non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTG with open total gastrectomy (OTG) and conducted an updated meta-analysis of anastomotic complications after total gastrectomy. The Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the non-RCTs included in this study. Next, we reviewed anastomotic complications in 46 case studies of LTG to compare the various procedures for EJS. RESULTS: The overall incidence of anastomotic leakage associated with EJS was 3.0% (30 of 984 patients) among LTG procedures and 2.1% (31 of 1500 patients) among OTG procedures in the 16 non-RCTs. The incidence of anastomotic leakage did not differ significantly between LTG and OTG (odds OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.86-2.33, P = 0.17, I(2) = 0%). Anastomotic stenosis related to EJS was reported in 72 (2.9%) of 2484 patients, and the incidence was 3.2% among LTG procedures and 2.7% among OTG procedures. The incidence of anastomotic stenosis related to EJS was slightly, but not significantly, higher in LTG than in OTG (OR = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.94-2.54, P = 0.08, I(2) = 0%). The various procedures for LTG were classified into six categories in the review of case studies of LTG. The incidence of EJS leakage was similar (1.1% to 3.2%), although the incidence of EJS stenosis was relatively high when the OrVil™ device was used (8.8%) compared with other procedures (1.0% to 3.6%). CONCLUSION: The incidence of anastomotic complications associated with EJS was not different between LTG and OTG. Anastomotic stenosis was relatively common when the OrVil™ device was 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207