Primary versus Staged Closure of Exomphalos Major: Cardiac Anomalies Do Not Affect Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim The objective of the study is to describe management of exomphalos major and investigate the effect of congenital cardiac anomalies. Methods A single-center retrospective review (with audit approval) was performed of neonates with exomphalos major (fascial defect ≥ 5cm ± liver herniation) between 2004 and 2014. Demographic and operative data were collected and outcomes compared between infants who had primary or staged closure. Data, median (range), were analyzed appropriately. Results A total of 22 patients were included, 20 with liver herniation and 1 with pentalogy of Cantrell. Gestational age was 38 (30–40) weeks, birth weight 2.7 (1.4–4.6) kg, and 13 (60%) were male. Two were managed conservatively due to severe comorbidities, 5 underwent primary closure, and 15 had application of Prolene (Ethicon Inc) mesh silo and serial reduction. Five died, including two managed conservatively, none primarily of the exomphalos. Survivors were followed up for 38 months (2–71). Cardiac anomalies were present in 20 (91%) patients: 8 had minor and 12 major anomalies. Twelve (55%) patients had other anomalies. Primary closure was associated with shorter length of stay (13 vs. 85 days, p = 0.02), but infants had similar lengths of intensive care stay, duration of parenteral feeds, and time to full feeds. Infants with cardiac anomalies had shorter times to full closure (28 vs. 62 days, p = 0.03), but other outcomes were similar. Conclusion Infants whose defect can be closed primarily have a shorter length of stay, but other outcomes are similar. Infants with more significant abdominovisceral disproportion are managed with staged closure; the presence of major cardiac anomalies does not affect surgical outcome.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".