Assessing Pediatric Anesthesia Practices for Volunteer Medical Services Abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anesthetic techniques and problems in volunteer medical services abroad are different from those of either the developed countries from which volunteers originate or the host country in which they serve because of differences in patient population, facilities, and goals for elective surgery. Assessing outcomes is hampered by the transience of medical teams and the global dispersion of providers. We studied general anesthesia techniques and outcomes in a large international voluntary surgical program. METHODS: Anesthesia providers and nurses participating in care of patients undergoing reconstructive plastic and orthopedic surgery by Operation Smile over an 18-month period were asked to complete a quality assurance data record for each case. Incomplete data were supplemented by reviewing the original patient records. RESULTS: General anesthesia was used in 87.1% of the 6,037 cases reviewed. The median age was 5 yr (25th-75th percentiles: 2-9 yr). Orofacial clefts accounted for more than 80% of procedures. Halothane mask induction was performed in 85.6% of patients; 96.3% of patients had tracheal intubation, which was facilitated with a muscle relaxant in 19.3%. Respiratory complications occurred during anesthesia in 5.0% of patients and during recovery (postanesthesia care unit) in 3.3%. Arrhythmias requiring therapy occurred in 1.5%, including three patients to whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation was administered. Prolonged ventilatory support was required in seven patients. There was one death. Inadvertent extubation during surgery occurred in 38 patients. Cancellation of surgery after induction of anesthesia occurred in 25 patients. Overall, complications were more common in younger children. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that in this setting it is feasible to track anesthesia practice patterns and adverse perioperative events. We identified issues for further examination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".