374. INCIDENCE AND PREDICTORS OF STRICTURE DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING ESOPHAGECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Anastomotic stricture (AS) is a well described complication after esophagectomy and not only affects nutritional status but also has a detrimental impact on long-term quality of life. This retrospective study explores the incidence of clinically relevant AS in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer and investigates the potentially reversible factors associated with AS. Methods A prospectively entered clinical database of consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy at a high-volume referral center over a decade (1/2013-12/2022) was queried for the presence of post-operative clinically significant AS, defined as stricture requiring endoscopic dilation. Multiple variables encompassing patient-related risk factors, tumor pathology, prior treatment, operative factors, and post-op complications were included in logistic regression analyses to delineate predictors of stricture formation. Results Of 1015 patients in the database, 115 (11.3%) developed AS requiring at least 1 post-op dilation. Although higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading was associated with elevated AS rate impact with most patients being ASA 2 and 3; 24% and 49% respectfully (p < 0.05). Specific patient factors/comorbidities such as age, peripheral or coronary vascular disease, and diabetes mellitus did not emerge as significant predictors. Surprisingly, neither histology, nor neoadjuvant therapy (chemo or chemoradiation) were associated with AS. Both a cervical anastomosis and a intra-operative pyloromyotomy had a higher AS rate than an intra-thoracic anastomosis (OR 13.3, p=0.006) and patients without a myotomy (p=<0.006). Other operative factors including approach (open vs MIE) conduit type (stomach/jejunum/colon) or width (3/4/5/6 cm) did not impact AS rate. All patients had a hand-sewn anastomosis. No post-operative outcome measures (e.g. leak, epidural use, hypotension) was associated with the development of AS. Conclusion Our results highlight the interplay of patient-related risk factors, tumor pathology, prior treatment, and operative factors in the development of post esophagectomy strictures. Understanding these predictors could potentially influence risk stratification and may facilitate tailored postoperative care strategies for improved patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".