Does an Additional Bile Duct Flush With Low-viscosity Preservation Solution Reduce Bile Duct Injury? A Single-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Biliary complications are a common cause of morbidity after liver transplantation and associated with bile duct injury. To reduce injury, a bile duct flush is performed with high-viscosity preservation solution. It has been suggested that an earlier additional bile duct flush with low-viscosity preservation solution may reduce bile duct injury and biliary complications. This study aimed to investigate whether an earlier additional bile duct flush would reduce bile duct injury or biliary complications. Methods. A randomized trial was conducted using 64 liver grafts from brain dead donors. The control group received a bile duct flush with University of Wisconsin (UW) solution after donor hepatectomy. The intervention group received a bile duct flush using low-viscosity Marshall solution immediately after the onset of cold ischemia and a bile duct flush with University of Wisconsin solution after donor hepatectomy. The primary outcomes were the degree of histological bile duct injury, assessed using the bile duct injury score, and biliary complications within 24 mo of transplant. Results. Bile duct injury scores were not different between the 2 groups. Similar rates of biliary complications occurred in the intervention group (31% [n = 9]) and controls (23% [n = 8]) ( P = 0.573). No difference between groups was observed for anastomotic strictures (24% versus 20%, P = 0.766) or nonanastomotic strictures (7% versus 6%, P = 1.00). Conclusions. This is the first randomized trial to investigate an additional bile duct flush using low-viscosity preservation solution during organ procurement. The findings from this study suggest that performing an earlier additional bile duct flush with Marshall solution does not prevent biliary complications and bile duct injury.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".