The Effect of Sprayable Adhesion Barriers in Revisional Obesity Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Revision bariatric surgery is technically demanding and associated with high morbidity rates due to formation of adhesions and distortion of proximal gastric anatomy. Two cases of failed gastric band were presented who required gastric sleeve. The patient who received adhesive barrier during removal of the band had less adhesion during the second procedure. This finding leads to a study to assess whether the application of an adhesion barrier film onto the operative field after the removal of the gastric band had any impact on the number and amount of adhesions at the time of the revision surgery after failed gastric banding. A study with 19 patients having band removal followed by sleeve gastrectomy 3 months later was performed. The patients were randomized to either a control group (11 patients) who received band removal only or an active group (eight patients) who had a sprayable adhesion barrier applied at the time of band removal. The second procedures for both groups were independently graded for adhesions. All procedures were recorded and were assessed in a blind fashion as to the severity of adhesions (grade 1 - 5). The total adhesion score for the control group (n = 11) was 32 (mean 2.82). The active group (n = 8) had a total adhesion score of 12 (mean 1.5). Statistical adhesion scored P = 0.05. The average operative time for the control group and active group was 73 and 56 min (P = NS). In our study, an adhesion barrier leads to a statistically significant reduction in adhesion formation and operative time. This warrants consideration of a larger trial to assess whether adhesion barriers may reduce morbidity in re-operative bariatric surgery. J Med Cases. 2018;9(3):92-95 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc3008w
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".