MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083594959 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1838

The role of preoperative prophylactic antibiotics in hypospadias repair

2014· article· en· W2083594959 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Emilie Baillargeon, Kai Duan, Alex Brzezinski, Roman Jednak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypospadiasAntibioticsMedicineSurgeryBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine whether the use of preoperative antibiotics is effective in reducing postoperative wound infections and urinary tract infections (UTI) in hypospadias repair. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all hypospadias repairs performed at the Montreal Children's Hospital between March 2009 and September 2012. All types of primary hypospadias repairs and redo cases were included. Patients with no adequate follow-up or with missing records of antibiotics were excluded. Preoperative antibiotics were given in the form of cefazolin (50 mg/kg intravenously) when appropriate. Postoperative oral antibiotics were administered as decided by the pediatric urologist. Primary outcomes included postoperative wound infection and UTI. Secondary outcomes included the need for reoperation of hypospadias due to urethrocutaneous fistula, meatal stenosis, urethral stricture and wound dehiscence. RESULTS: In total, 157 cases of hypospadias repair were reviewed; of these 7 were excluded due to lack of follow-up. Of the remaining 150 patients, 62 received preoperative antibiotics and 88 did not. The groups were well-matched for age, hypospadias characteristics, type of repair and repair of curvature. The group that received preoperative antibiotics had a significantly higher number of stented cases (82% vs. 52% of the non-preoperative antibiotic group). Two cases of wound infection were reported (1 in the pre-operative antibiotic group and 1 in the non-preoperative antibiotic group). There was no symptomatic UTI or culture-demonstrated UTI in either group. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of primary outcomes. The complication rate was 11% (17/150 repairs) and all patients needed reoperation. This study's important limitations include the rarity of studied end points combined with the small sample and the retrospective nature of our study. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support the routine use of preoperative antibiotics in hypospadias repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207