Tracheostomy versus mandibular distraction osteogenesis in Canadian children with Pierre Robin sequence: a comparative cost analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Upper airway obstruction in newborns with Pierre Robin sequence (PRS) may be severe enough to require a surgical intervention. Tracheostomy has been the traditional gold standard, but mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) has been proven to be an effective alternative procedure. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to conduct the first comparative cost analysis between tracheostomy and MDO in Canada. METHODS: All patients with PRS who underwent tracheostomy or MDO between January 2005 and December 2010 were included. Tracheostomy and MDO procedures were broken down into individual components, and the associated costs for these components were totaled. The average per-patient cost for each modality was then compared. RESULTS: During the study period, 52 children underwent either a tracheostomy (n = 31) or MDO (n = 21). The average age at surgery, gender, and presence of associated syndromes were similar in both groups. Taking into account the cost of the surgeries, health care professional fees, and hospital stay, the total per-patient treatment cost was determined to be $57,648.55 for MDO and $92,164.45 for tracheostomy. The majority of the cost for the tracheostomy group was associated with prolonged hospital stay after the operation ($72,827.85). Overall, the average per-patient cost was 1.6 times greater in the tracheostomy group compared to the MDO group (p = .039). CONCLUSION: The initial cost of MDO was less than the tracheostomy cost for newborns with PRS and severe upper airway obstruction at our health care centre. Further prospective analysis considering the long-term costs is required to possibly reduce long-term health care costs.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".