Living on the EDGE: Canadian Experience With EUS-directed Transgastric ERCP (EDGE) in Patients With Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery imposes anatomic barriers to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Potential options for biliary access in these patients include laparoscopic-assisted ERCP or balloon enteroscopy. However, these approaches require specialized equipment and/or operating room personnel and are associated with high rates of failure and adverse events compared to conventional ERCP. A recently described technique, EDGE, is an endoscopic approach which involves accessing the excluded stomach to facilitate ERCP. Objective: The objective of this study is to describe the results of EDGE procedures performed in Canada. Methods: Data were collected from patient cases who had undergone an EDGE procedure across centers in Canada. All patients had a history of RYGB bariatric surgery. In each procedure, a 20-mm diameter lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) was deployed under EUS guidance to allow access from the gastric remnant/proximal jejunum to the excluded stomach. Subsequently, during a separate procedure, a duodenoscope was passed through the LAMS to perform ERCP. Following ERCP, the LAMS was replaced with a pigtail stent or APC was used to facilitate closure of the gastro-jejunal/gastro-gastric fistula. Results: The indication for EDGE in the seven included cases was for the treatment of choledocholithiasis (six) or gallstone pancreatitis (one). The technical success rate of the EDGE procedure in these cases was 100%. Clinical success, defined by normalization of bilirubin and symptomatic relief, was observed in all cases. There were no adverse events reported. Conclusion: The results of this series support EDGE as a safe and minimally invasive approach to biliary access and therapy in patients with previous RYGB surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".