Coronary Artery Stent for Securing High-risk Pancreatico-jejunal Anastomosis After Pancreatoduodenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and clinical utility of coronary artery stent (CAS) in securing pancreatico-jejunal anastomosis (PJ) and avoid stent displacement after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Externalized trans-anastomotic stent (ETS) is a standard mitigation strategy for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) in high-risk patients. However, major morbidity remains extremely elevated, especially in case of ETS malfunction due to displacement. METHODS: A pilot series of 72 patients underwent PD and PJ with CAS positioning between January 2016 and December 2019. All patients were at high-risk for POPF (soft pancreatic texture; main pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm) and underwent a CT-scan at postoperative day 5 and 10 to assess the correct CAS positioning. Postoperative outcomes were analyzed, and displacement rates were compared with a cohort of 141 patients with the same high-risk characteristics, undergoing PD with PJ and externalized trans-anastomotic stent (ETS). RESULTS: No CAS-related complications were registered in the study group. In particular, no CAS displacement was registered, compared to a 28% ETS malfunction (either displacement or occlusion). The POPF rate, major morbidity, and mortality were 11%, 6%, and 0% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CAS positioning appears to be a feasible and safe mitigation strategy to secure PJ anastomosis after PD with high POPF risk avoiding stent displacement. Further validation and comparison with current standard of care is required in a prospective controlled setting.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".