DOZ047.64: Sham feeding promotes oral feeding success in long-gap esophageal atresia, even with traction sutures in situ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Sham feeding (SF) and staged repair using traction suture techniques (TST) were both introduced to the management of long-gap esophageal atresia (LGOA) at The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne (RCH) in January 2012. Previous studies report SF to reduce time to full oral feeding (FOF) postdefinitive repair. In our practice, SF is individually tailored, supervised, and involves offering 2–4 feeds daily. This single-center experience describes SF in newborns with LGOA, including those with staged TST prior to definitive repair, and the impact of SF on time to FOF. Methods Patients admitted 2000–2018 with LGOA were identified from the Nate Myers Oesophageal Atresia Database, RCH. Those with incomplete data or complications preventing oral feeds were excluded. Patients were grouped into two epochs: Group 1 (2000–2011, no SF, no TST) and Group 2 (2012–2018, all offered SF, some TST). Demographics and time to FOF were compared between groups. Parametric data (mean, SD) were analyzed with two sample t-test, and nonparametric data (median, IQR) with Mann–Whitney test; P < 0.05 significant. Ethics approval was obtained (HREC#QA/51247/RCHM-2019). Results Of 37 LGOA patients, six met exclusion criteria leaving 31 for analysis; Group 1, n = 13; Group 2, n = 18. Groups did not differ in gestation (P = 0.63), birth weight (P = 0.91) or time to definitive repair (P = 0.85). In Group 2, 12/18 had successful SF, including 9 who underwent TST. Three additional patients with TST were unsuccessful with SF. Compared with Group 1, FOF was significantly reduced in those 12 patients with successful SF (median FOF 730 days, IQR 125–1100 vs. median FOF 75 days IQR 56–227; P = 0.03). Small sample size precluded meaningful subgroup analyses of successful versus unsuccessful SF patients. Importantly, no patient aspirated during SF, though one developed oral aversion post-TST and one ceased SF at parental request. Conclusions In LGOA, successful SF improves time to FOF postdefinitive repair, and was not associated with aspiration in our experience. Further, we report success with SF in patients undergoing staged repair with TST, including following traction suture placement. To our knowledge, this is the first report of SF in LGOA patients during the period between traction suture placement and definitive 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".