The usefulness and costs of routine contrast studies after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for detecting staple line leaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for severe obesity (body mass index ≥ 35), staple line leaks remain a major complication and account for a substantial portion of the procedure's morbidity and mortality. Many centres performing LSG routinely obtain contrast studies on postoperative day 1 for early detection of staple line leaks. We examined the usefulness of Gastrografin swallow as an early detection test for staple line leaks on postoperative day 1 after LSG as well as the associated costs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database that included 200 patients who underwent LSG for severe obesity between 2011 and 2014. Primary outcome measures were the incidence of staple line leaks and the results of Gastrografin swallow tests. We obtained imaging costs from appropriate hospital departments. RESULTS: Gastrografin swallow was obtained on postoperative day 1 for all 200 patients who underwent LSG. Three patients (1.5%) were found to have staple line leaks. Gastrograffin swallows yielded 1 true positive result and 2 false negatives. The false negatives were subsequently diagnosed on computed tomography (CT) scan. The sensitivity of Gastrografin swallow in this study was 33%. For 200 patients, the total direct cost of the Gastrografin swallows was $35 000. CONCLUSION: The use of routine upper gastrointestinal contrast studies for early detection of staple line leaks has low sensitivity and is costly. We recommend selective use of CT instead.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".