Evolving Trends in the Management of Duodenal Leaks After Pancreas Transplantation: A Single-Centre Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Duodenal leaks (DL) contribute to most graft losses following pancreas transplantation. However, there is a paucity of literature comparing graft preservation approach versus upfront graft pancreatectomy in these patients. We reviewed all pancreas transplants performed in our institution between 2000 and 2020 and identified the recipients developing DL to compare based on their management: percutaneous drainage vs. operative graft preservation vs. upfront pancreatectomy. Of the 595 patients undergoing pancreas transplantation, 74 (12.4%) developed a duodenal leak with a median follow up of 108 months. Forty-five (61%) were managed by graft preservation strategies, with the rest being treated with upfront graft pancreatectomy. DL managed by graft preservation strategies had similar graft survival rates at 1 and 5-year compared to the matched cohort of population without DL (95% and 59% vs. 91% and 62%; p = 0.78). Multivariate analysis identified male recipient (OR: OR: 6.18; CI95%: 1.26-41.09; p = 0.04) to have higher odds of undergoing an upfront graft pancreatectomy. In appropriately selected recipients with DL, graft preservation strategies utilizing either interventional radiology guided percutaneous drainage or laparotomy with/without repair of leak can achieve comparable long-term graft survival rates compared to recipients without DL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".