Open pancreaticoduodenectomy: setting the benchmark of time to functional recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: No accepted benchmarks for open pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) exist. The study assessed the time to functional recovery after open PD and how this could be affected by the magnitude of midline incision (MI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective snapshot study during 1 year. Time to functional recovery (TtFR) was assessed for the entire cohort. Further analyses were conducted after excluding patients developing a Clavien-Dindo ≥ 2 morbidity and after stratifying for the relative length of MI. RESULTS: The overall median TtFR was 7 days (n = 249), 6 days for uncomplicated patients (n = 124). A short MI (SMI, < 60% of xipho-pubic distance, n = 62) was compared to a long MI (LMI, n = 62) in uncomplicated patients. The choice of a SMI was not affected by technical issues and provided a significantly shorter TtFR (5 vs 6 days, p = 0.002) especially for pain control (4 vs. 5 days, p = 0.048) and oral food intake (5 vs. 6 days, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Functional recovery after open PD with MI is achieved within 1 week from surgery in half of the patients. This should be the appropriate benchmark for comparison with minimally invasive PD. Moreover, PD with a SMI is feasible, safe, and associated with a faster recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".