Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Gastric Transposition in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric transposition is an established method of esophageal replacement in children, and the use of minimally invasive techniques avoids the trauma of open access. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of minimally invasive versus open gastric transposition in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All cases of attempted laparoscopic-assisted gastric transposition at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), London, United Kingdom, between 2003 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. A comprehensive literature search was completed on MEDLINE for minimally invasive gastric transposition in children, and postoperative outcomes were collated. The outcomes from the retrospective review (single-center, GOSH) and the literature search (multicenter) were compared with those of the largest study on open gastric transposition consisting of 192 cases performed at GOSH. RESULTS: In this retrospective review of 19 patients (mean age, 3.5 years; range, 0.4-15 years), the indications were long-gap esophageal atresia, postoperative, caustic, and idiopathic esophageal stricture, and esophageal dysmotility. Three cases were converted to laparotomy and excluded from subsequent analysis. There were one anastomotic leak, two strictures, and no deaths in this series. The literature search yielded a further 50 cases for comparison. Single-center (n=16) and multicenter (n=66) comparison of minimally invasive versus open technique (n=192) showed no difference in leak (6.3% and 16.7%, respectively, versus 12.0%; P=.701 and P=.398), stricture (12.5% and 15.2% versus 20.8%; P=.535 and P=.370), and mortality rates (0% and 1.5% versus 4.7%; P=1.000 and P=.461). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive gastric transposition is a safe and acceptable alternative to open surgery in children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".