MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136676675 · doi:10.14740/jocmr4455

Impact of Vascular Anomalies on Pancreatoduodenectomy Procedure

2021· article· en· W3136676675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Subhi Mansour, Mira Damouny, Miriam Obeid, Amir Farah, Kenan Halloun, Rozan Marjiyeh, Jawad Ghalia, Yoram Kluger, Safi Khuri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyAngiographyComputed tomographic angiographyComplicationRadiologyVascular surgerySurgeryCardiac surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: One of the critical steps during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) procedure lies in identifying the complicated vascular anatomy of the resected area. The blood supply usually stems from branches of the celiac and the superior mesenteric arteries. However, only in 55-79% of surgeries, the anatomy of the blood vessels encountered by the surgeon is considered normal, while in the remaining cases, there are vascular variations that make these surgeries even more challenging. Any change or deviation from the known surgical course of PD makes surgery difficult and can result in an increase in intra/postoperative complications. In order to reduce difficulties encountered during PD, as well as reducing complication rates and improving surgical outcomes, a preliminary design, which includes preoperative identification of anatomical variations, is needed. The most accurate and accessible tool for identifying such variations is computed tomographic angiography (CTA). The aim of this retrospective study is to assess the prevalence of vascular anomalies encountered during PD, and examine whether there is an association between these anomalies and intra/postoperative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: A retrospective study over 5 years was performed at the HPB and Surgical Oncology Unit, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. The charts of all patients submitted to PD were reviewed, and all patients with vascular anomalies were included. The types of anatomical variant as well as other information were collected. For statistical purposes, the group of patients with vascular anomalies was compared to a control group with identical demographic characteristics. A statistical analysis on possible association between vascular anomalies and intra/postoperative complications (mainly bleeding) was performed. RESULTS: During the aforementioned period, 202 patients underwent PD, and in 41 (20.3%) vascular anomalies were identified. The majority of these patients (32/41) had single anatomical variant, where two and three anatomical variants were identified in seven and two patients, respectively. The most common vascular anomaly was replaced right hepatic artery, noticed in 34 patients (83%). The most common indication for PD for both groups (anatomical variant and control group) was pancreas adenocarcinoma (56%). Intraoperative complication, in the form of bleeding, developed in 6/41 patients (14.6%) of the anatomical variant group and none in the control group. Postoperative complication rates, including post- pancreatoduodenectomy hemorrhage (PPH), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), intra-abdominal abscess and wound infection were almost identical for both groups. One case of death within 30 days occurred, and it was in the anatomical variant group. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical vascular anomalies are a common variant encountered during PD, with RRHA being the most common. Although postoperative morbidity and mortality are not affected by the presence of these anomalies, intraoperative bleeding rate is higher in this specific group, thus; a preoperative diagnosis by means of CTA is mandatory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.263
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207