Transabdominal Management of Epiphrenic Diverticula in the Setting of Achalasia: A Single-center Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The perioperative and functional outcomes of patients with epiphrenic diverticula (ED) on a background of achalasia managed via a minimally invasive transabdominal approach are under-reported. We describe our center's experience over 10 years of treating such patients. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective chart of a prospectively maintained hospital database was performed. All patients with a diagnosis of ED and manometrically proven achalasia were identified. Demographic, clinical, and surgical data were extracted from the institution's medical records. Patients were stratified by whether they underwent myotomy only or myotomy plus diverticulectomy and compared in a univariate manner. RESULTS: There were 18 patients who met the inclusion criteria. The median age of the cohort was 67.1 years (range 53.1 to 77.8), the maximal size of the diverticula was 3.5 cm (range 2.0 to 7.0), and the distance of the proximal lip of the diverticulum to the incisors was 33.5 cm (range 28.0 to 38.0). In terms of surgical intervention, 14 patients (77.8%) underwent myotomy plus diverticulectomy, and 4 (22.2%) underwent myotomy alone. The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the former (177.5 vs. 75.0 min, P =0.031). In total, 9/18 (50.0%) of patients were discharged on the day of surgery. There was a trend to more major postoperative complications following diverticulectomy plus myotomy, with 2/13 (15.4%) patients suffering staple line leaks. Excellent long-term functional outcomes were achieved, with 81.3% of patients having sustained resolution of their symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic transabdominal approach for the treatment of ED offers an acceptable risk profile and favorable functional outcomes in patients with underlying achalasia.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".