Endoscopic management for gastrointestinal leaks, perforations, and fistulae: Technical tips and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) tract defects can be classified into three distinct entities: Leak, perforation, and fistula. Each arises from different mechanisms and is managed accordingly. Leaks occur most often after surgery, while perforations arise due to flexible endoscopic maneuvers. Fistulae arise from a variety of mechanisms, including specific disease states. Endoscopic management is vital in treating such defects if the region of interest can be accessed with the appropriate endoscopic accessories. The primary goal of endoscopic therapy is to interrupt the flow of luminal contents across a GI defect. Considering the proper endoscopic approach to luminal closure, several basic principles must be considered. Outcomes are dependent on the size and exact location of the leak/fistula, as well as the viability of the surrounding tissue. Almost all complex leaks and fistulae must be approached in a multidisciplinary manner, collaborating with colleagues in nutrition, radiology, and surgery. With advances in technology, a myriad of devices and accessories are available that allow a tailored approach. In this review, we discuss these modalities, provide technical tips, and review published outcomes data regarding each approach, as well as practical considerations for the successful closure of these defects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".