Anastomosis Complications after Bronchoplasty: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Treatment Options Reported by a Referral Cancer Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sleeve lobectomy with bronchoplasty is a safe surgical technique for the management of lung cancer and endobronchial localization of extrapulmonary cancers. However, anastomotic complications can occur, and treatment strategies are not standardized. Methods: Data from 280 patients subjected to bronchoplasty were retrospectively analyzed, focusing on surgical techniques, anastomotic complications, and their management. Multivariate analysis was performed, and Kaplan–Meier curves were used to determine survival. Results: Ninety percent of 280 surgeries were for lung cancer. Anastomotic complications occurred in 6.42% of patients: late stenosis in 3.92% and broncho-pleural fistula in 1.78%. The median survival was 65.90 months (95% CI = 41.76–90.97), with no difference (p = 0.375) for patients with (51.28 months) or without (71.03 months) anastomotic complications. Mortality at 30 days was higher with anastomotic complications (16.7% vs. 3%, p = 0.014). Multivariable analysis confirmed pathological stage (N+) as a risk factor for anastomotic complications (p = 0.016). Our mortality (3.93%) and morbidity rate (41.78%) corresponded to recent series results. Conclusions: In our experience, surgery is preferred to avoid life-threatening complications in bronchopleural fistulas. Bronchoscopic balloon dilatation is preferred for benign strictures. The nodal stage is related to complications (p = 0.0014), reflecting the aggressiveness of surgery, which requires extended radical lymphadenectomy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".