MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615483067 · doi:10.1093/dote/dox044

Omission of preoperative esophageal manometry does not alter operative approach or postoperative dysphagia following laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair

2017· article· en· W2615483067 on OpenAlexaff
Boris Zevin, Edward L. Jones, Sara E. Martin del Campo, Kyle A. Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDysphagiaHerniaSurgeryHernia repairGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Routine esophageal manometry for surgical planning before laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) has been advocated in an effort to reduce the likelihood of postoperative dysphagia. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether omitting routine preoperative esophageal manometry is associated with a change in the type of fundoplication performed and with an increase in the incidence of postoperative dysphagia. A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with and without preoperative esophageal manometry undergoing PEH repair was performed between January 2011 and July 2014 at an academic medical center. Demographic and outcome data were collected in a prospective database. The primary outcome measures were the type of fundoplication performed and postoperative disease-specific quality-of-life (GERD-HRQL) dysphagia score. Secondary outcome measures were total GERD-HRQL score, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and requirement for endoscopic dilation. One hundred twenty-five patients underwent laparoscopic PEH repair. Forty-seven (37%) patients had preoperative manometry and 79 (63%) did not. Patients who did not have manometry were older (67.9 ± 14.3 vs. 61.7 ± 13.5, P = 0.02), but the groups did not differ in terms of BMI, gender, PPI use, baseline GERD-HRQL dysphagia score, or baseline total GERD-HRQL score. Sixty-nine (87%) patients without manometry and 43 (93%) patients with manometry underwent a complete fundoplication (P = 0.55). At a median follow-up of 16 (4-44) months, the median GERD-HRQL dysphagia scores (0(0-1) vs. 0(0-1); P = 0.66) and total GERD-HRQL scores (3(1-8) vs. 4(0-8); P = 0.72) were equivalent between the groups. Equivalent proportion of patients without and with preoperative manometry used PPI (9% vs. 21%; P = 0.06) and required endoscopic dilation (6% vs. 6%; P = 0.99) in the postoperative period. Omission of routine preoperative manometry prior to laparoscopic PEH repair is not associated with a change in the type of fundoplication performed, an increased incidence of postoperative dysphagia, or an increased requirement for postoperative endoscopic dilation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the EsophagusSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207