Neonatal oesophageal perforation: The role for non‐operative management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Isolated oesophageal perforation in neonates is a rare but potentially life-threatening condition. Although management has historically been operative, conservative management (antibiotics, bowel rest, parenteral nutrition) is now more routinely used. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management of this condition in two large neonatal surgical centres. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted for neonates admitted to The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada) or The Royal Children's Hospital (Melbourne, Australia) with a diagnosis of oesophageal perforation, from 2006 to 2016. Patients with oesophageal atresia or tracheo-oesophageal fistula were excluded. Data were collected from chart review regarding demographics, clinical course, management and outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven neonates with oesophageal perforation were identified over a 10-year period at the two centres. Median gestational age at birth was 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 24.2-28.8) and the majority (7/11, 64%) of neonates were extremely low birthweight. Diagnosis was made on day 1 of life for 9 of 11 (81%) neonates and was secondary to nasogastric tube insertion in 10 of 11 (91%) neonates. Only four (36%) neonates had symptomatic complications. All neonates were managed with bowel rest and intravenous antibiotics for a median of 7 days (interquartile range 7-10); two patients required operative intervention. Three neonates (27%) developed chronic lung disease and two (19%) died prior to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Oesophageal perforation is severe complication secondary to instrumentation of the upper gastrointestinal tract in neonates. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is crucial. Non-operative management is effective for the majority, though morbidity is common.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".