Stent-Over-Sponge (SOS) as a Rescue Technique for Leak Post-Bariatric Surgery: Experience From Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaks and fistulas are serious complications following gastrointestinal surgeries, traditionally managed by self-expandable metal stents and endoscopic vacuum therapy. The stent-over-sponge (SOS) technique is a new modality used as a rescue option when other interventions fail. This report presents the case of a 60-year-old female patient who underwent revisional bariatric surgery and developed a leak post-operation. Initial management included endoscopic debridement and the placement of an Endo-VAC system. Due to technical difficulties, the sponge was left in an endoluminal position, leading to migration. A partially covered stent was placed to prevent further migration and facilitate healing. The patient experienced complications, including hematemesis, but ultimately achieved complete leak closure and is asymptomatic six months post-treatment. In this case, the SOS technique demonstrates its safety and efficacy in dealing with post-operative leaks in patients having undergone bariatric surgery, which would justify performing more extended evaluative studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".