216 VIDEO-ASSISTED THORACOSCOPIC SURGERY VERSUS OPEN THORACOTOMY IN PAEDIATRIC SCOLIOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Purpose</h3> To compare the perioperative variables and clinical outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with the traditional open thoracotomy approach for anterior spinal release and posterior fusion in the treatment of paediatric scoliosis. <h3>Methods</h3> A retrospective chart review of nineteen consecutive patients treated with VATS anterior spinal release and posterior fusion was completed. An additional nineteen age- and disease-matched patients treated with open thoracotomy were also reviewed for comparison. <h3>Results</h3> VATS patients achieved a larger post-operative curve correction compared to those that underwent thoracotomy (p= .01). The VATS group also received less transfused blood during the procedure (p= .03). The open thoracotomy patients experienced less post-operative chest tube drainage (p= .02), and as a result had their chest tubes removed earlier (p= .01). There was no difference in operating time, total blood loss, length of ventilator use, length of ICU stay, or length of hospital stay. There were no major complications in either group. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery continues to be a safe and successful approach for the treatment of paediatric scoliosis. This study shows that it is possible to achieve large post-operative curve corrections and reduce the amount of transfused blood needed using the VATS technique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".