Outcomes among trauma patients with duodenal leak following primary versus complex repair of duodenal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). RESULTS: The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p < 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p < 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p < 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p < 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA. CONCLUSION: Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".