Conjoined Twin Separation: Review of 30-Year Case Experience and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conjoined twinning is a rare medical phenomenon, and numerous challenges remain with respect to surgical separation and reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to present a detailed discussion of the authors' institutional experience with eight conjoined twin separations over the past three decades, focusing on challenges and lessons gleaned from these cases. METHODS: The records of all patients who underwent conjoined twin separation at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, from 1984 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Eight sets of conjoined twins were analyzed. Half of the sets [ n = 4 (50 percent)] were female. There were four sets (50 percent) of ischiopagus twins, three sets (37.5 percent) of omphalopagus twins, and one set (12.5 percent) of craniopagus twins. The median age at separation was 6.75 months. The mean durations of intensive care unit and hospital stay were 14.1 ± 12.9 days and 4.9 ± 4.8 months, respectively. Mean length of follow-up was 6.7 ± 4.4 years. Three deaths occurred in our series, with an overall survival rate of 81 percent. Two sets of twins experienced expander-related complications such as infection and bowel perforation. Three twins required reoperation because of flap necrosis or dehiscence after separation. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results highlight the unique nature of each operation and the great ingenuity required in managing the particular considerations of each case and also adhering to a systematic approach of evaluation and planning. A number of novel strategies were used at the authors' center and have now become commonplace. The lessons learned from such procedures may improve care for future generations of patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".