Effect of anesthesia for hypospadias repair on perioperative complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent publications from the United States, India, and Korea report that children undergoing hypospadias repair with caudal regional anesthesia/analgesia could have increased postoperative surgical complications. AIMS: The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the impact between caudal regional anesthesia, other regional anesthesia, and no regional anesthesia on complications after hypospadias repair at a tertiary care children's hospital in Ottawa, Canada, with an expectation to changing practices if a link was found. METHOD: We reviewed the health records of 827 children with hypospadias undergoing penile surgery from January 1991-June 2017. The final sample size for the analysis consisted of 764 patients and 825 procedures. RESULTS: The overall complications were almost identical when considering anesthesia effects, and this similarity persisted when we assessed specifically for only surgical complications. We had 716, 94, and 15 subjects who had a caudal block, penile block, and general anesthesia only, respectively, and their complication rates were 28, 31, and 27%, respectively, and their fistula formation rates were 10, 6, and 0%, respectively, and their stricture formation rates were 8, 7, and 20%,, respectively. Hypospadias type and surgical repair technique were marked predictors of complications in the postoperative period. CONCLUSION: Anesthesia technique appears to have minor impact on complications after hypospadias repair, while surgical technique and type of hypospadias impact complications after hypospadias surgery in children. Based upon these results, we will not change our current practice of using a variety of regional anesthesia techniques for children undergoing hypospadias repair.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".