DOZ047.29: Pleural flap for partial esophageal substitution in case of difficult anastomosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esophageal reconstruction in long-gap atresia remains challenging for the surgeon. Complications of surgery, regardless of choices and methods proposed, are frequents, sometimes serious, and can significantly delay baby's feeding, with increased disruption of orality. The ideal is a reconstruction with only esophageal tissue available. There is renewed interest for technical of elongation described initially by Foker, especially modified by Van Der Zee.1 But, elongation is not always so simple that provided. We report an observation of esophageal atresia (type 1 Ladd), treated by rapid elongation. On the sixth day of procedure, right pleurisy reveals a rip at the apex of inferior esophagus. Anastomosis was possible on the posterior plane, but impossible on the anterior plane. The anterior plane has been reconstituted with a flap of parietal pleura. The operative course was simple without any fistula. Oral feeding started at fifteenth day postanastomosis was quickly complete. Gastrostomy left by security has not been used. Three endoscopic dilations have been necessary at six weeks, two and five months after anastomosis. At the age of eleven months, the orality was perfect, and diet was diversified with pieces. Use a pleural flap to bury or isolate sutures is well known technic.2 But use only pleura to replace the esophageal wall is not described. Partial reconstruction of a hemiesophageal wall with only pleura is possible, despite difficult conditions. It is a trick easily achievable in case of difficulty, with a good result that is maintained over time.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".