Placing vacuum sponges in esophageal anastomotic leaks — how we do it
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Endoluminal vacuum sponge therapy has dramatically improved the treatment of anastomotic leaks in esophageal surgery. However, the blind insertion of vacuum sponge kits like Eso-Sponge® via an overtube and a pusher can be technically difficult. METHODS: We therefore insert our sponges under direct visual control by a nonstandard "piggyback" technique that was initially developed for the self-made sponge systems preceding these commercially available kits. RESULTS: Using this technique, we inserted or changed 56 Eso-Sponges® in seven patients between 2018 and 2023. Apart from one secondary sponge dislocation, no intraprocedural complications were encountered. One patient died due to unrelated reasons. In all others, the defects healed and they were dismissed from the hospital. Long-term follow-up showed three strictures that were successfully treated by dilatation. CONCLUSION: We conclude that sponge placement via piggyback technique is a fast, safe, and successful alternative to the standard method of insertion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".