Endoscopic Resection of Ampullary Tumours: Long-term Outcomes and Adverse Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The management of ampullary lesions has shifted from surgical approach to endoscopic resection. Previous reports were limited by small numbers of patients and short follow-up. The aim of this study is to describe short- and long-term outcomes in a large cohort of patients undergoing endoscopic ampullectomy. Methods Retrospective study of endoscopic ampullectomies performed at a tertiary center from January 1999 to October 2016. Information recorded includes patient demographics, clinical outcomes, lesion pathology, procedural events, adverse events and follow-up data. Results Overall, 103 patients underwent endoscopic resection of ampullary tumours (mean age 62.3 ± 14.3 years, 50.5% female, mean lesion size 20.9 mm; 94.9% adenomas, with a majority of lesions exhibiting low-grade dysplasia (72.7%). Complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 82.5% at initial procedure. Final complete endoscopic resection was achieved in all patients with benign pathology on follow-up procedures. Final pathology showed that 11% had previously undiagnosed invasive carcinoma. Delayed postprocedure bleeding occurred in 21.4%, all of which were managed successfully at endoscopy. Acute pancreatitis complicated 15.5% of procedures (mild in 93.8%). Perforation occurred in 5.8%, all treated conservatively except for one patient requiring surgery. Piecemeal resection was associated with significantly higher recurrence compared to en-bloc resection (54.3% versus 26.2%, respectively, P = 0.012). All recurrences were treated endoscopically. Conclusion Endoscopic ampullectomy appears both safe and effective in managing patients with ampullary tumours in experienced hands. Most adverse events can be managed conservatively. Many patients develop recurrence during long-term follow-up but can be managed endoscopically. Recurrence rates may be reduced by performing initial en-bloc resection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".