<p>Pyloromyotomy in Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis: A Comparative Study Between Supraumbilical Curved Skin Incision and Standard (Right Upper Quadrant) Skin Incision: Study in a Resource Limited Setting</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The main therapeutic option for hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS) is pyloromyotomy surgical technique which can be performed via different methods, including right upper quadrant (RUQ) transverse incision and supraumbilical curved skin incision; thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate and compare clinical efficacy of supraumbilical curved skin incision and standard (RUQ) skin incision. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective case-control study, 35 patients with HPS were initially evaluated. After evaluating hospital records, 31 patients with completed hospital records were included: 9 from case group and 22 from control group. Demographic information, surgery parameters and postoperative complications were extracted from the hospital records or calling parents. Results: Results showed that the surgery parameters such as surgery duration (P=0.211), postoperative fasting duration (P=0.831), and hospitalization duration (P=0.521) in both groups were similar. Moreover, surgery complications such as duodenal or gastric perforation and surgical site infection did not differ between the groups (P> 0.05). While we found that Vancouver Scar Scale was significantly lower in supraumbilical curved skin incision as compared to control group (1.8 ± 0.5 vs 5.1 ± 0.7, P< 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: The results of this study showed the beneficial effects of supraumbilical curved skin incision technique on surgery scar outcomes and gives best cosmetic results with minimal complications, which could be replaced to RUQ operative technique and significantly lead to better control of surgery scar. Keywords: hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, supraumbilical curved skin incision, right upper quadrant transverse incision
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".