Magnetic single‐anastomosis side‐to‐side duodeno‐ileostomy for revision of sleeve gastrectomy in adults with severe obesity: 1‐year outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Uncomplicated surgical approaches that minimize anastomotic complications while improving revisional metabolic/bariatric surgical (MBS) outcomes are needed. Methods This prospective single‐center study assessed the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the novel linear magnetic anastomosis system (LMAS [3 cm]) in performing a side‐to‐side duodeno‐ileostomy (MagDI) bipartition to revise clinically suboptimal primary sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Patients with severe obesity with/without type 2 diabetes (T2D) with suboptimal weight loss, regain, and/or T2D recurrence post SG underwent revisional MagDI. A distal and proximal magnet were delivered endoscopically to the ileum and duodenum and aligned via laparoscopic assistance. Gradual magnet fusion formed a DI bipartition. Primary endpoints: technical feasibility, safety (Clavien‐Dindo [CD] severe adverse event classification) at 1 year. Secondary endpoints: MBS weight and T2D reduction. Results July 29, 2022–March 28, 2023, 24 patients (95.8% female, mean age 44.9 ± 1.5 years, and body mass index [BMI] 39.4 ± 1.3 kg/m 2 ) underwent MagDI. Feasibility was attained via correct magnet placement (mean operative time 63.5 ± 3.3 min), patent anastomoses created, and magnet passage per anus in 100.0% of patients. There were 4 CD‐III mild or moderate severe AEs, 0.0% associated with the LMAS or MagDI: 0.0% anastomotic leakage, obstruction, bleeding, infection, reintervention, or death. Mean BMI reduction was 2.1 kg/m 2 ( p < 0.05); total weight loss 5.3%, excess weight loss 16.4%; and the patient with T2D improved. Conclusion The single‐anastomosis MagDI procedure using the novel 3‐cm LMAS to revise clinically suboptimal SG was technically straightforward, incurred no major complications, mitigated weight regain, and renewed clinically meaningful weight loss. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT05322122.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".