Rescue from complications after pancreaticoduodenectomies at a low-volume Caribbean center: Value of tailored peri-pancreatectomy protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a technically complex operation, with a relatively high risk for complications. The ability to rescue patients from post-PD complications is as a recognized quality measure. Tailored protocols were instituted at our low volume facility in the year 2013. AIM To document the rate of rescue from post-PD complications with tailored protocols in place as a measure of quality. METHODS A retrospective audit was performed to collect data from patients who experienced major post-PD complications at a low volume pancreatic surgery unit in Trinidad and Tobago between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2023. Standardized definitions from the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery were used to define post-PD complications, and the modified Clavien-Dindo classification was used to classify post-PD complications. RESULTS Over the study period, 113 patients at a mean age of 57.5 years (standard deviation [SD] ± 9.23; range: 30-90; median: 56) underwent PDs at this facility. Major complications were recorded in 33 (29.2%) patients at a mean age of 53.8 years (SD: ± 7.9). Twenty-nine (87.9%) patients who experienced major morbidity were salvaged after aggressive treatment of their complication. Four (3.5%) died from bleeding pseudoaneurysm (1), septic shock secondary to a bile leak (1), anastomotic leak (1), and myocardial infarction (1). There was a significantly greater salvage rate in patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists scores ≤ 2 (93.3% vs 25%; P = 0.0024). CONCLUSION This paper adds to the growing body of evidence that volume alone should not be used as a marker of quality for patients requiring PD. Despite low volumes at our facility, we demonstrated that 87.9% of patients were rescued from major complications. We attributed this to several factors including development of rescue protocols, the competence of the pancreatic surgery teams and continuous, and adaptive learning by the entire institution, culminating in the development of tailored peri-pancreatectomy protocols.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".