Preserving the Pancreas Graft: Outcomes of Surgical Repair of Duodenal Leaks in Enterically Drained Pancreas Allografts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak remains a major cause of morbidity and graft loss in pancreas transplant recipients. The role and efficacy of surgical and image-guided interventions to salvage enterically drained grafts with a duodenal leak has yet to be defined. METHODS: We investigated the incidence, treatment, and outcome of duodenal leak in 426 pancreas transplantation recipients from 2000 to 2015. RESULTS: Duodenal leak developed in 33 (7.8%) recipients after a median follow-up of 5.3 (range, 0.5-15.2) years. Most leaks occurred during the first year (n = 22; 67%), and most were located near the proximal and distal duodenal staple line. Graft pancreatectomy was performed in 8 patients as primary therapy because of unfavorable local and/or systemic conditions. Salvage was attempted in 25 patients using percutaneous drainage (n = 4), surgical drainage (n = 4), or surgical repair (n = 17). Percutaneous or surgical drainage failed to control the leak in 7 of these 8 patients, and all 7 ultimately required graft pancreatectomy for persistent leak and sepsis. Surgical repair salvaged 14 grafts, and 13 grafts continue to function after a median follow-up of 2.9 (range, 1.1-6.3) years after repair. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that in selected patients a duodenal leak can be repaired successfully and safely in enterically drained grafts.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it