MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550294077 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2803w

Antegrade Versus Retrograde Cholecystectomy: What’s in a Name?

2016· article· en· W2550294077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lemuel Pran, Ravi Maharaj, Shanta Baijoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyCholecystectomyGallbladderCommon bile ductAmpullaBile ductSphincter of OddiGeneral surgeryRadiologyAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I have read the article entitled “Laparoscopic anterograde cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis” with much interest [1]. The word antegrade refers to moving or extending forward as opposed to retrograde which implies moving backward or opposite to the direction of flow. These are commonly used in medical terminology as a cholangiogram done from the ampulla toward the bile duct is an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; similarly, a retrograde pyelogram refers to intravasation of contrast from the urethra toward the kidneys. Also when referring to endovascular vessel access, an antegrade approach confers with cannulation of the vessel proximal to site of the lesion, whereas in a retrograde approach, the access vessel is distal to the target lesion. Therefore, it appears that the terms antegrade and retrograde not only take into consideration direction of flow but also the relative anatomical position. Interestingly flow of bile is bi-directional in a reversed manner from the bile duct into the cystic duct when sphincter of Oddi is closed and in a forward direction with contraction of the gallbladder and relaxation of the sphincter of Oddi [2]. This concept of flow therefore cannot be used as a basis for determination of antegrade or retrograde cholecystectomy. The terms antegrade and retrograde cholecystectomy have been introduced over time and with the advances in surgical practice. However, to apply these terms descriptively to the removal of the gallbladder is very enigmatic and controversial as the literature is fraught with inconsistency. I refer to Kelly et al where a retrograde cholecystectomy is considered a fundus first approach [3]. Contradictory to this, Neri et al describes a fundus first approach as antegrade [4]. Admittedly this concept was difficult to grasp; however, antegrade or retrograde is based on the surgeon’s perspective and his intended end point. The current standard for cholecystectomy is via a laparoscopic approach with initial dissection of Calot’s triangle followed by fundic dissection off the liver bed. Theoretically from the laparoscopic surgeon’s perspective, this is an antegrade dissection, and the same is true for an open procedure where the fundus is dissected followed by Calot’s triangle. Prior to the laparoscopic era in the 1980s, this terminology was also surrounded by much controversy. As highlighted there is confusion and the accuracy of the nomenclature comes into question. It is advised that there is standardization of the terminology. We recommend that the terms antegrade and retrograde be substituted for “Fundus First” and “Calot’s First” approach for cholecystectomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersFrench-language works237,207