Pancreatic fistulas after pancreatico-duodenectomies: are pancreatico-gastrostomies safer than pancreatico-jejunostomies? a quasi-experiment and propensity-score adjusted analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreatic fistula (PF) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). There remains a debate as to whether reestablishing pancreaticoenteric continuity through a Pancreatico-Gastrostomy (PG,) compared to a Pancreatico-Jejunostomy(PJ,) can decrease the risk of PF and total complications. GOAL: We compared the outcomes of patients undergoing PG or PJ after PD at the McGill University Health Centers, where patient assignment to PG or PJ fulfills most of the criteria for a Quasi-Experiment. METHODS Data on pre-operative factors and post- operative complications was collected for patients undergoing PD in our database between 1999 and 2011 and receiving either a PG or PJ reconstruction. We performed a propensity-score adjusted logistic regression to identify the effect of surgical technique on outcomes of PF, delayed gastric emptying (DGE), and total complications. We used the ISGPF and Strasberg and Linehan definition and classification for PF and the ISGPS definition for DGE. The total morbidity experience was assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification and the Comprehensive Comorbidity Index (CCI) for all complications. RESULTS 23/103 and 20/103 (p=0.49) of patients had PF and 74/103 and 55/103 patients had all-grades DGE in the PG and PJ groups respectively (p=0.02). The groups did not differ with regards to Clavien-Dindo grade of complications (p=0.29) but did differ with regards to the CCI (38.4 vs. 31.4 for PG vs. PG respectively, p=0.02.) Propensity-score adjusted multivariate analysis showed no effect of surgical technique on PF (p=0.89), DGE grades B/C (p=0.9) or CCI (p=0.41) but there remained an effect on all-grades DGE (p=0.012.) CONCLUSION Patients undergoing PG reconstruction did not have less PF than those reconstructed with PJ after PD at our institution; Though Patients in both groups experienced a similar burden of complications, the odds of all- grade DGE were higher in the PG group.
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 | 0.056 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".