Silicone-covered biodegradable magnesium-stent insertion in the esophagus: a comparison with plastic stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We determined the feasibility of, and tissue response to silicone-covered biodegradable magnesium- and plastic-stent insertion into the esophagus in rabbits. Methods: The mechanical compression–recovery characteristics and degradation behaviors of the magnesium stent were investigated in vitro. A total of 45 rabbits were randomly divided into a magnesium- ( n = 15) and a plastic- ( n = 15) stent group, and underwent stent insertion into the lower third of the esophagus under fluoroscopic guidance; a control group ( n = 15) did not undergo the intervention. Esophagography was performed at 1, 2, and 4 weeks. Five rabbits in each group were euthanized at each time point for histological examination. Results: Silicone-covered magnesium stents showed similar radial force to plastic stents ( p > 0.05). The magnesium stents degraded rapidly in an acidic solution, but 90.2% ± 3.1% of the residual mass was maintained after a 2-week degradation in a solution with a pH of 4.0. All stent insertions were well tolerated. Magnesium stents migrated in six rabbits (one at 1 week, one at 2 weeks and four at 4 weeks), and plastic stents migrated in three rabbits (one at 2 weeks and two at 4 weeks; p > 0.05). Esophageal wall remodeling (thinner epithelial and smooth muscle layers) was similar in both stented groups ( p > 0.05), and the esophagus wall was found to be significantly thinner in the stented groups than in the control group ( p < 0.05). Esophageal injury and collagen deposition following stent insertion were similar and did not differ from the control group ( p > 0.05). Conclusions: Esophageal silicone-covered magnesium stents provided reliable support for at least 2 weeks, with acceptable migration rates and without causing severe injury or tissue reaction compared with plastic stents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".