MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402132459 · doi:10.1093/dote/doae057.359

748. CAUSES, TREATMENT AND OUTCOMES OF CONDUIT NECROSIS FOLLOWING OESOPHAGECTOMY: A SINGLE CENTRE RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

2024· article· en· W4402132459 on OpenAlexaffabout
James Tankel, Amit Katz, Mehrnoush Dehghani, Ms Rawan Sakalla, Jonathan Cools‐Lartigue, Jonathan Spicer, Sara Najmeh, Carmen Mueller, Lorenzo Ferri

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal and GI Pathology
Canadian institutionsMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineElectrical conduitRetrospective cohort studySurgeryEsophagectomyNecrosisInternal medicineCancerEsophageal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Conduit necrosis (CN) following esophagectomy is a poorly described entity associated with high morbidity and mortality. Identifying factors associated with CN would help stratify patients at risk of this devastating complication. Furthermore, describing the outcomes of various treatment options may aid in personalising treatment to maximise the chance of recovery. The aim of this study was to describe the causes, treatment and outcomes of CN following esophagectomy. Methodology Between 01/2006 and 12/2023, a single centre retrospective review of a prospectively maintained comprehensive oesophageal cancer surgical database was performed. Complications data from the online Canadian Thoracic Surgery Quality Improvement Program was also utilized. All patients with oesophageal and junctional cancer who underwent transthoracic en bloc surgical resection were included. Defined as circumferential ischaemia of the neo-esophageal conduit identified on postoperative endoscopy, patients with CN were identified. Clinical and demographic data of these patients was compared to those with no documented history of conduit complications. The treatment and outcomes of CN were also recorded. Results Anastomotic leak occurred in 146/1043 patients (14.0%), CN in 39 (3.7%) and tracheo-oesophageal fistula in 7 (0.7%). Compared to the 853 patients without conduit complications, CN was associated with BMI >34.5kg/m2 (3/39 vs 15/853,p = 0.03), proximal lesions (5/39,12.9% vs 23/853,2.7%, p = 0.002) and McKeown oesophagogastrectomy (13/39,33.3% vs 125/853,14.7%, p=<0.001). Initially, endoscopic treatment, anastomotic refashioning, taking down the conduit and oesophagostomy was used in 14, 13, 8 and 4 patients (35.9%,33.3%,20.5% and 10.3%) with success rates of 7/14(50.0%), 6/13(46.2%), 4/8(50.0%), and 3/4(75.0%) respectively. The 90-day mortality of CN was 10.9% and associated with a prolonged hospital admission (median 46 vs 12 days, p=<0.001) Conclusion CN is an uncommon entity but associated with high morbidity, mortality and prolonged postoperative length of stay. Treatment decisions remain complex and whilst endoscopic management seems feasible, re-intervention is often required. Further understanding of how to improve salvage treatment in this unique cohort of patients is required.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the EsophagusSame topicEsophageal and GI PathologyFrench-language works237,207