Postoperative complications of hypospadias repair in patients receiving caudal block vs. non-caudal anesthesia: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We performed a meta-analysis of the current literature to assess the association of caudal block and postoperative complication rates following hypospadias repair. METHODS: A Systematic literature search was conducted on October 2017. Five reviewers independently screened, identified, and evaluated comparative studies assessing postoperative outcomes following hypospadias repair with and without caudal block. The incidence of post-surgical complications from each study was extracted for caudal block and control groups to generate the odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Effect estimates were pooled using inverse-variance method with random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to study type and hypospadias severity. RESULTS: Nine studies (2096patients) of low- to moderate-quality were included for meta-analysis. Overall pooled effect estimates demonstrated increased occurrence of postoperative complication rates among patients with caudal block (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.29-4.16). Subgroup analysis according to hypospadias severity revealed that a significant increased OR in complication rate was noted among proximal hypospadias (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.80-7.01), but not distal hypospadias (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.59-2.88). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of poor-quality evidence may have revealed a significant association between caudal block and postoperative complications following hypospadias repair. However, subgroup analysis demonstrated that hypospadias severity is important in determining complication rates, suggesting that confounding factors and selection bias may play a central role in characterizing the true effect of the anesthesia approach.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".