Abordaje laparoscópico simultáneo del cáncer de colon con metástasis hepáticas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases (CLM), complete resection of the primary tumor with the metastases is the only option for curative treatment. Several case series have been reported but no randomized controlled trials have been published. Objective: The aim was to evaluate if the simultaneous laparoscopic resection of the primary colon tumor and liver metastases is feasible and safe. Material and methods: A retrospective study was conducted with patients with suspected CLM sche- duled for simultaneous laparoscopic resection of the primary tumor of the colon and liver metastases. The preoperative and operative variables, short- and long-term outcomes and pathological variables were analyzed. Results: A total of 89 laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) were performed during the study period. In 28 patients, LLR was simultaneous with other procedures, 21 of which corresponded to laparoscopic colon resection. Mean surgical time for both procedures was 407 minutes. Mean hospital length of stay was 8 days. None of the patients died and overall morbidity rate was 71% with only one major complication. Overall survival and relapse-free survival at three years was 55.2% and 16.3%, respectively. Conclusion: This is the first publication analyzing this approach in our country. In well selected cases, the simultaneous laparoscopic approach is feasible, with low morbidity and mortality and acceptable oncological results.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".