The art and craft of biliary T-tube Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since the universal adoption of Hans Kehr's biliary T-tube in the early twentieth century, use has shifted from routine towards highly selective. Improved interventional endoscopy, percutaneous techniques, and hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) training have resulted in less T-tube experience within general surgery. The aim of this technical review is to discuss T-tube indications, technical nuances, and management. METHODS: Peer-reviewed literature, combined with high volume HPB experience by the authors, was utilized to construct a 10-step conceptual pathway for safe T-tube usage. RESULTS: Essential concepts surrounding T-tube use include: 1. Contemporary indications for T-tube insertion (disease-, patient-, and anatomy-based); 2. Correct instrument availability (open and laparoscopic); 3. T-tube selection and mechanical preparation; 4. Atraumatic T-tube insertion and security; 5. Immediate postoperative management and meticulous T-tube care; 6. Imaging biliary T-tubes; 7. Optimal timing of T-tube removal; 8. Technical aspects of T-tube removal; 9. Management of potential T-tube inpatient complications; and 10. Management of T-tube complications in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: Although their use has decreased substantially, the role of biliary T-tubes in some patients is essential. Given the reality of less frequent experience with T-tube insertion and management, this 10-step pathway will provide an adequate mental and technical framework for safe biliary T-tube use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Expert opinion, level V.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".