Relationship Between the Intraperitoneal Stent Length in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy and Surgically Altered Upper Gastrointestinal Anatomy in Patients With Malignant Biliary Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is associated with a relatively high proportion of adverse events, and this is attributable to the lack of standardized protocols and specialized equipment. Although the outcomes of EUS-HGS may differ between patients with and those without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, there have been no reports on this topic. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS using our standardized method and to compare the outcomes between patients with and those without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. METHODS: In EUS-HGS, we used a long partially covered metal stent, and we kept the gastric wall pressed with the scope tip until the stent was deployed more than 1 cm inside the working channel of the scope to minimize free space between the liver and gastric wall (the intraperitoneal stent length). A total of 12 patients who underwent EUS-HGS using our method were retrospectively studied. Procedural success and adverse events were evaluated, and the outcomes of EUS-HGS were compared between six patients with and six without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. RESULTS: The procedural success rate was 100%. Additionally, stent migration or dislocation was not noted in any of the patients. The intraperitoneal stent length was significantly greater in patients without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy than in those with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy (19.8 mm vs. 11.6 mm; 95% confidence interval, 2.185 - 14.147; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-HGS using our method was safe. Our findings suggested that special attention should be paid to stent migration or dislocation in patients without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".