Identifying variability in surgical practices and instrumentation for hypospadias repair across the Western Pediatric Urology Consortium (WPUC) network
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although hypospadias outcomes studies typically report a level or type of repair performed, these studies often lack applicability to each surgical practice due to technical variability that is not fully delineated. An example is the tubularized incised plate (TIP) urethroplasty procedure, for which modifications have been associated with significantly decreased complication rates in single center series. However, many studies fail to report specificity in techniques utilized, thereby limiting comparison between series. OBJECTIVE: With the goal of developing a surgical atlas of hypospadias repair techniques, this study examined 1) current techniques used by surgeons in our network for recording operative notes and 2) operative technical details by surgeon for two common procedures, tubularized incised plate (TIP) distal and proximal hypospadias repairs across a multi-institutional surgical network. STUDY DESIGN: A two-part study was completed. First, a survey was distributed to the network to assess surgeon volume and methods of recording hypospadias repair operative notes. Subsequently, an operative template or a representative de-identified operative note describing a TIP and/or proximal repair with urethroplasty was obtained from participating surgeons. Each was analyzed by at least two individuals for natural language that signified specified portions of the procedure. Procedural details from each note were tabulated and confirmed with each surgeon, clarifying that the recorded findings reflected their current practice techniques and instrumentation. RESULTS: Twenty-five surgeons from 12 institutions completed the survey. The number of primary distal hypospadias repairs performed per surgeon in the past year ranged from 1-10 to >50, with 40% performing 1-20. Primary proximal hypospadias repairs performed in the past year ranged from 1-30, with 60% performing 1-10. 96% of surgeons maintain operative notes within an electronic health record. Of these, 66.7% edited a template as their primary method of note entry; 76.5% of these surgeons reported that the template captures their operative techniques very or moderately well. Operative notes or templates from 16 surgeons at 10 institutions were analyzed. In 7 proximal and 14 distal repairs, parameters for chordee correction, urethroplasty suture selection and technique, tissue utilized, and catheter selection varied widely across surgeons. CONCLUSION: Wide variability in technical surgical details of categorically similar hypospadias repairs was demonstrated across a large surgical network. Surgeon-specific modifications of commonly described procedures are common, and further evaluation of short- and long-term outcomes accounting for these technical variations is needed to determine their relative influence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».