A single-center clinical study of hepatic artery variations in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatic artery variations increase the difficulty of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The safety and efficacy of LPD in the presence of aberrant hepatic arteries (AHA) must be further verified.Patients with normal and variant hepatic arteries who underwent LPD and preoperative arterial angiography were retrospectively analyzed. Variation type, intraoperative management, and clinical treatment outcomes were compared.There were 54 cases (24.8%) of AHA. The most common hepatic artery variation was accessory right hepatic artery (RHA) from the superior mesenteric artery (SMA, n = 12, 5.5%), followed by replaced RHA from the SMA (n = 10, 4.6%), accessory left hepatic artery from the SMA (n = 10, 4.6%), and replaced common hepatic artery from the SMA (n = 6, 2.8%). Each type of arterial variation was successfully preserved in all cases, and there were no significant effects on the evaluated surgical indices, conversion rate, incidence of postoperative complications, or follow-up results.Our findings indicated that preservation of AHAs during total LPD is feasible. There were no significant effects on surgical indices, incidence of postoperative complications, or follow-up outcomes.The influence of AHA on the safety and efficacy of LPD must be further verified. Patients with normal and variant hepatic arteries who underwent LPD and preoperative arterial angiography were retrospectively analyzed. There were 54 cases (24.8%) of AHA. There were no significant effects of AHAs on surgical indices, incidence of postoperative complications, or follow-up outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".