Outcomes From an Enhanced Recovery Program for Laparoscopic Gastric Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the outcomes from an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for laparoscopic gastric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gastric resection in an ERAS protocol at a single institution between 2008 and 2012. Outcomes included the length of hospital stay, intraoperative and postoperative complications, the readmission rate, the reoperation rate, and the 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Of the 86 patients, 60 underwent partial gastrectomy and 26 underwent total gastrectomy. Median lymph nodes sampled was 15 (range, 9 to 47). The median length of hospital stay was 4 (range, 1 to 44) days. The conversion rate to open surgery was 11.6%. Four patients (4.7%) had an anastomotic leak. Three patients had postoperative bleeding (4.7%). About 4.7% (n=4) of the patients required readmission and 8.1% required reoperation (n=7). The 30-day mortality rate was 2.3% (n=2) due to complications from anastomotic leak. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic gastrectomy within an ERAS protocol results in a short hospital stay with an acceptable morbidity and mortality rate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".