MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395033747 · doi:10.1055/s-0044-1783762

EUS-guided transgastric drainage of pancreaticopleural fistulas- single center experience

2024· article· en· W4395033747 on OpenAlexaff
Katarzyna M. Pawlak, Mateusz Jagielski, Kareem Khalaf, Jacek Piątkowski, Marek Jackowski

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDrainageCenter (category theory)SurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Pancreaticopleural fistula (PPF) poses a rare and challenging complication of pancreatitis, leading to respiratory symptoms. With no established standard of management, endoscopy emerges as an alternative approach. However, challenges arise with transpapillary drainage during ERCP, particularly when inflammatory changes affect periampullary area. While endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided drainage presents a potential alternative, its efficacy and safety in this context have not been evaluated. This case report aims to assess efficacy and safety of EUS-guided transgastric drainage of PPF. Methods A prospective cohort study analyzed the outcomes of EUS-guided drainage in four patients with PPF. The study was carried out at the Department of General, Gastroenterological, and Oncological Surgery, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, between 2021-2023. Results PPF was identified in four patients (all male; mean age 50.25 [42–61] years). Dyspnea was observed in all patients (100%), with one patient experiencing respiratory failure. 50% of patients presented with epigastric pain, and 75% exhibited fever. Organ failure occurred in two patients (25% each for kidney and liver), and sepsis was diagnosed in one patient (25%). CT revealed PPF communication with the left pleural cavity in 75% of patients and the right pleural cavity in 25%. Chronic pancreatitis was diagnosed in all patients. Despite unsuccessful transthoracic drainage in all cases, and failed transpapillary drainage during ERCP due to severe stenosis of the pancreatic duct (25%), inflammatory tumor of the pancreatic head (25%), and inflammatory periampullary infiltration (50%), EUS successfully visualized fistula tracts from the pancreatic body (50%), tail (25%), and neck (25%). The mean pleural collection size was 107.5 mm (80-150mm), with a mean distance of 18.75 mm (15-25mm) between the fistula tract and gastric wall, and a mean pancreatic duct size of 11.75 mm (10-15mm). In all patients (100%), EUS-guided transgastric drainage of the PPF was performed, with punctures of the fistulas’ tract from the gastric cardia (50%) and body (50%), followed by guidewire advancement and tract dilation using a 10Fr cystotome. Double pigtail stents (7Fr, 9-12cm) were placed in 3 of patients, and a lumen-apposing metal stent (30x16mm) in one. Technical and clinical success was achieved in all patients with no adverse events. The mean hospital stay was 7.75 days (5-12 days), and symptoms resolved in all patients. Stents were removed in two patients after 6 months, and during a mean follow-up period of 34 months (29-39 months), no recurrence was observed. Complete closure of fistula tracts with collection resorption was evident in CT. Two patients remained asymptomatic during follow-ups of 3 and 1 months, with stents in situ, and showed improvement in imaging. Conclusions In conclusion, EUS-guided transgastric drainage might be a safe and effective alternative for managing PPF refractory to conventional interventions. Publication History Article published online: 15 April 2024 © 2024. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207