Minimally invasive <i>versus</i> open lateral pancreaticojejunostomy in patients with painful chronic pancreatitis: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with painful chronic pancreatitis combined with a dilated main pancreatic duct and a normal size pancreatic head are treated according to guidelines by lateral pancreaticojejunostomy (LPJ). This systematic review compared outcomes of minimally invasive LPJ and open LPJ. METHODS: From 1 January 2000 until 13 November 2023, series reporting on minimally invasive LPJ and open LPJ in patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis were included. This study was structured in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was intraoperative and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included long-term clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 19 retrospective studies were included. Morbidity rate ranged from 0% to 57% after minimally invasive LPJ versus 4% to 68% after open LPJ (median: 25, i.q.r.: 23). Length of hospital stay ranged from 5 to 7 days after minimally invasive LPJ and from 6 to 16 days after open LPJ. The rate of pain relief ranged from 62% to 91% after open LPJ (median: 78.5, i.q.r.: 23) and from 71% to 100% (median: 82.5, i.q.r.: 12.5) after minimally invasive LPJ respectively. New-onset endocrine insufficiency ranged from 21% to 22% in minimally invasive LPJ and 19% to 26% after open LPJ. New-onset exocrine insufficiency was shown in 11% to 27% in minimally invasive LPJ versus 8% to 26% after open LPJ. Weight gain ranged from 60% to 100% (median: 97, i.q.r.: 23) after minimally invasive LPJ. DISCUSSION: This systematic review suggested that minimally invasive LPJ can be performed safely in selected patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis. Phase 2 randomized trials should assess potential short-term benefits such as postoperative pain and length of hospital stay after minimally invasive LPJ.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".