Side-to-side magnet anastomosis system duodeno-ileostomy with sleeve gastrectomy: early multi-center results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Gastrointestinal anastomoses with classical sutures and/or metal staples have resulted in significant bleeding and leak rates. This multi-site study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and preliminary effectiveness of a novel linear magnetic compression anastomosis device, the Magnet System (MS), to form a side-to-side duodeno-ileostomy (DI) diversion for weight loss and type 2 diabetes (T2D) resolution. Methods In patients with class II and III obesity (body mass index [BMI, kg/m2] ≥ 35.0– ≤ 50.0 with/without T2D [HbA1C > 6.5%]), two linear MS magnets were delivered endoscopically to the duodenum and ileum with laparoscopic assistance and aligned, initiating DI; sleeve gastrectomy (SG) was added. There were no bowel incisions or retained sutures/staples. Fused magnets were expelled naturally. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC). Results Between November 22, 2021 and July 18, 2022, 24 patients (83.3% female, mean ± SEM weight 121.9 ± 3.3 kg, BMI 44.4 ± 0.8) in three centers underwent magnetic DI. Magnets were expelled at a median 48.5 days. Respective mean BMI, total weight loss, and excess weight loss at 6 months (n = 24): 32.0 ± 0.8, 28.1 ± 1.0%, and 66.2 ± 3.4%; at 12 months (n = 5), 29.3 ± 1.5, 34.0 ± 1.4%, and 80.2 ± 6.6%. Group mean respective mean HbA1C and glucose levels dropped to 1.1 ± 0.4% and 24.8 ± 6.6 mg/dL (6 months); 2.0 ± 1.1% and 53.8 ± 6.3 mg/dL (12 months). There were 0 device-related AEs, 3 procedure-related serious AEs. No anastomotic bleeding, leakage, stricture, or mortality. Conclusion In a multi-center study, side-to-side Magnet System duodeno-ileostomy with SG in adults with class III obesity appeared feasible, safe, and effective for weight loss and T2D resolution in the short term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".