New anti-mesenteric delta-shaped stapled anastomosis: Technical report with short-term postoperative outcomes in patients with Crohn’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Medical treatment for Crohn’s disease (CD) has continuously improved, which has led to a decrease in surgical recurrence rates. Despite these advancements, 25% of patients will undergo repeat intestinal surgery. Recurrence of CD commonly occurs on the mesentery side of the anastomosis site. AIM To compare the new anti-mesenteric side-to-side delta-shaped stapled anastomosis (DSA) with the conventional stapled functional end-to-end anastomosis (CSA). METHODS This retrospective study included CD patients who underwent ileo-ileal or ileo-colic anastomosis between January 2020 and December 2023. The DSA technique employed a stapler to maintain the concept of anti-mesentery side-to-side anastomosis by performing a 90° vertical closure of the open window compared with the CSA technique. At the corner where the open window is closed, the DSA avoids forming a pouch and creates an anastomosis resembling a delta shape within the intestinal lumen. We compared demographics, preoperative condition, operative findings, and operative outcomes for the two techniques. RESULTS The study included 175 patients, including 92 in the DSA group and 83 in the CSA group. The two groups were similar in baseline characteristics, preoperative medical treatment, and operative findings except for the Montreal classification location. The 30-days postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the DSA group compared with the CSA group (16.3% vs 32.5%, P = 0.009). Ileus incidence was significantly lower in the DSA group than in the CSA group (4.3% vs 14.5%, P = 0.033), and the hospital stay was shorter in the DSA group than in the CSA group (5.67 ± 1.53 days vs 7.39 ± 3.68 days, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION The DSA technique was feasible and showed comparable postoperative outcomes with lower short-term complications compared with the CSA technique. Further studies on CD recurrence and long-term complications are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".