Tracheoesophageal fistula: open versus endoscopic repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The management of primary or recurrent tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) remains an important challenge for airway surgeons. RECENT FINDINGS: The accuracy of prenatal detection can be significantly improved in specialized centers. Routine preoperative and postoperative airway endoscopy is recommended to detect a proximal fistula and evaluate vocal cord motility. Minimally invasive thoracoscopic approaches have equal success and improved cosmesis and visualization as compared with thoracostomy. Novel open approaches for complex TEF include a transcervical, transtracheal approach, and slide tracheoplasty.Endoscopic closure of TEF carries less morbidity. Options include de-epithelialization of the tract, interposed material, and combinations. The mean operative time is 30 min; however multiple treatments are required (average 2.1). Use of continuous positive airway pressure in the immediate postoperative period was not associated with increased leak or recurrence. Children post-TEF repair continue to have frequent gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms. SUMMARY: Prenatal diagnosis is beneficial both for prenatal counseling and for planning care. The ideal endoscopic approach is undecided but remains an interesting alternative to open surgery provided failures are anticipated and prompt repeated treatments initiated to preclude ongoing respiratory complications. Transtracheal approaches and slide tracheoplasty are well tolerated and effective in complex/recurrent cases. Long-term follow-up of patients with TEF is important.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".