Comparison of single- versus double-anastomosis duodenal switch: A single-center experience with 2-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Single-anastomosis duodenal switch (SADS) has emerged in recent years as an alternative to the standard double-anastomosis duodenal switch (DADS). The objective of this study was to compare short- and medium-term outcomes between SADS and DADS. Methods Data collected in the Ontario Bariatric Registry between 2010 and 2019 were used for this retrospective study to determine outcomes of patients undergoing primary laparoscopic SADS versus DADS at a Canadian tertiary hospital and bariatric center of excellence. The primary outcome was weight loss at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Short-term secondary outcomes included operative times, intra- and early postoperative complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmissions. Medium-term secondary outcomes included late postoperative complications as well as nutritional deficiencies and persistent diarrhea at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare patients undergoing one- and two-stage procedures. Results Data of 107 patients who underwent SADS (n = 25) or DADS (n = 82) were included in the study. Follow-up data were available for 59/107 (55.1%) patients at 1 year and 47/107 (43.9%) at 2 years after surgery. Patients in the SADS and DADS groups had similar %TBWL at 1 year (23.6 versus 26.2, P = 0.617) and 2 years (24.8 versus 30.2, P = 0.116) after surgery. Short- and medium-term outcomes were similar between groups. There was no difference between patients undergoing one- versus two-stage procedures. Conclusion This study showed that patients undergoing SADS and DADS had similar weight loss at 1 and 2 years. Early and late postoperative morbidity, operative times, early readmissions, and LOS were also similar between groups. Further studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm these results.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".