A143 PATIENT POSITION AND ENDOSCOPIC CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY (ERCP) TECHNICAL SUCCESS AMONG PATIENTS WITH SURGICALLY ALTERED FOREGUT ANATOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pose challenges due to anatomical distortions. Factors such as patient positioning, endoscopist experience, and choice of endoscope may influence procedural success. It is unclear how these factors may impact the technical success of ERCP among patients with altered anatomy. Aims We primarily aimed to determine the impact of patient positioning (prone versus left lateral decubitus [LLD]) on technical success of ERCP among patients with surgically altered anatomy. Our secondary aim was to determine the impact of patient positioning on procedural time and immediate bleeding. Methods We conducted a retrospective single-centre study using data from 2010 to 2020 that included patients with hepaticojejunostomy, Roux-en-Y anastomosis, Billroth-1, or Billroth-2 anatomy. The primary outcome was technical success of the ERCP, which we comprehensively defined as of successful navigation to the papilla or surgical anastomosis, selective cannulation and cholangiography, and the realization of the intended therapeutic goals. The secondary outcomes were the presence of immediate bleeding and procedural time. Statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics using mean and standard deviation (SD) and Fisher exact test with relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). All statistical tests were two-tailed and considered significant at Pampersand:003C0.05. Results Among 205 patients, there were 179 (87.3%) in the LLD group, and 26 (12.6%) in the prone group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of patient sex, age, type of altered anatomy, or American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification. We found that there was no significant differences between the two groups in terms of procedural success (RR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.8-1.5), immediate bleeding (RR 1.7, 95% CI: 0.2-14.8), and procedural time (P=0.808). Conclusions We did not find that patient positioning had a significant impact on technical success in ERCP among patients with surgically altered anatomy. The choice of positioning should be tailored to individual patient and endoscopist factors, with a focus on optimizing outcomes in this complex patient subset. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".