A Step-Wise Approach to Total Laparoscopic Gastrectomy with Jejunal Pouch Reconstruction: How and Why We Do It
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is a safe alternative compared to open gastrectomy for cancer. To increase the uptake of minimally invasive approaches and facilitate their analysis and improvement a stepwise approach is warranted. This study describes our technique and experiences total laparoscopic gastrectomy (TLG) with jejunal pouch reconstruction for gastric cancer. Technical modifications throughout the years were described. In patients with anastomotic leakage, the CT-scan and reoperation report were reviewed to identify the location and cause of the leak. A total of 47 patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy with extracorporeal jejunal pouch reconstruction and stapled circular esophagojejunostomy from May 2007 to August 2015 were prospectively analyzed. A stepwise approach of 10 steps was designed based on video and case analysis. Median operation time was 301 (148-454) minutes and median blood loss was 300 (30-900) milliliters. Anastomotic leakage occurred in six (12.8 %) patients; additionally, one (2.12 %) jejunal-pouch staple line leak was identified. An important modification in our technique was a purse-string suture around the anvil of the circular stapler to prevent esophageal mucosa to slip away. After this modification, the leakage rate was reduced to 7 % in the last 15 procedures. In conclusion, TLG with jejunal pouch reconstruction is a feasible procedure in a selected group of patients. Our stepwise approach and technique may help surgeons to introduce jejunal pouch reconstruction during laparoscopic gastrectomy in their center.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".