MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470072059 · doi:10.1097/imi.0000000000000177

Transthoracic Extracorporeal Gastric Conduit Preparation for Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy

2015· article· en· W2470072059 on OpenAlexaff
Anna McGuire, Sébastien Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporealAnastomosisSurgeryLaparotomyEsophagectomyElectrical conduitLaparoscopyEsophageal cancerInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: During totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), the gastric conduit is typically constructed via laparoscopy. Trauma from laparoscopic instruments, inability to palpate the gastroepiploic arcade, and challenges in optimal positioning of the stomach for intra-abdominal stapling have led to the widespread use of laparotomy as part of hybrid MIE procedures. Our objective was to evaluate the safety of transthoracic extracorporeal gastric conduit preparation. We hypothesize that this alternative technique is equivalent in safety to the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: This is a retrospective comparison of laparoscopic and transthoracic extracorporeal gastric conduit preparation with regard to anastomotic and respiratory outcomes. RESULTS: During a 3-year period, 30 patients underwent MIE with a right intrathoracic anastomosis (extracorporeal conduit, 15; laparoscopic conduit, 15). Mean age (58.6 vs 67 years, P = 0.59), tumor location (gastroesophageal junction vs middle and lower esophageal, P = 0.27), and histology (adenocarcinoma vs other 26.7%, P = 0.68) were similar between groups. Anastomotic technique and operating surgeon were the same for all patients. Patients in the laparoscopic gastric conduit group were more likely to have undergone induction chemoradiotherapy (40% vs 80%, P = 0.030). There was no significant difference between groups with respect to anastomotic complications, including anastomotic leak and anastomotic stricture (20% vs 13.3%, P = 0.70). Transthoracic gastric conduit preparation was not associated with increased respiratory complications (8% vs 12%, P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Transthoracic gastric conduit preparation is a simple, minimally invasive alternative laparotomy for gastric conduit preparation during MIE. No additional incision is required. The technique may help surgeons overcome shortcomings of the laparoscopic approach without impacting perioperative risk.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular SurgerySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207