MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586747687 · doi:10.1093/icvts/ivv204.30

F-030OUTCOMES FOLLOWING REVISION PECTUS EXCAVATUM REPAIR IN THE ADULT

2015· article· en· W2586747687 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Yeung, José Ribas, Milanez de Campos, M. A. Ko, Meredith Blitz, Christopher Compeau

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPectus excavatumMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Surgical repair of pectus excavatum is generally undertaken before adolescence in order to avoid ossification and possible worsening of the defect which occurs with puberty. However, an unsatisfactory result can occur either primarily or as a result of pubertal changes, requiring revision surgery in adult life. We review the outcomes of revision pectus surgery at two adult centres with experience in both Nuss and Ravitch procedures for pectus repair. Methods: Retrospective data on revision pectus surgery were collected at two adult centres over a period from 2005 to 2014. Variables collected included demographics, operative details and outcomes from the first and second operation, and satisfaction following the revision operation. Using our pectus repair database, a 1:1 cohort of sex, age, and procedure matched patients who underwent an index pectus operation was generated as a control. Results: Approximately 350 pectus operations were performed at the two centres over the study period. Seventeen were revisions. Indication for reoperation was recurrence in 13 (76%) and resultant asymmetrical pectus carinatum in 4 (24%). Median age at first operation was 15 (4-33) and re-operation was 20 (14-35). Median time between operations was 7 years (1-23). The initial operation was Ravitch in 11 (65%) and Nuss in 6 (35%). Six (35%) patients underwent the Ravitch after the Nuss procedure and 11 (65%) patients had the Nuss after the Ravitch procedure. Significant adhesions were encountered in 3 (18%) patients, all Nuss after Ravitch. Complications included Nuss bar migration (6%), chest wall hematoma (6%), persistent pain (6%) and wound infection (6%). Sixteen (94%) patients were satisfied with the final outcome. When compared to the control cohort, median length of stay (P = 0.94) and complication rate (P = .99) were similar. Conclusions: Revision pectus excavatum surgery in the adult is safe and effective. A Nuss procedure can be revised with a Ravitch and vice-versa. Therefore, chest wall reconstructive surgeons need to be experienced with all surgical techniques to comprehensively manage patients with index or recurrent pectus excavatum. Disclosure: No significant relationships.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic SurgerySame topicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207