Surgical Strategies for Preservation of Pulmonary Valve Function in a Radical Operation for Tetralogy of Fallot: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different surgical strategies to preserve pulmonary valve function. Surgical procedures evaluated include intraoperative balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty (IBPV), pulmonary valve reconstruction, and commissurotomy and pulmonary cusp augmentation (PCA) in patients who underwent a radical operation for Tetralogy of Fallot (ToF). Materials and Methods: The five databases searched in the current study included the Cochrane Library, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and WanFang data. A systematic search for control trials was performed in each database from the start date of each database until December 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. Results: A total of 15 retrospective studies with a total number of 1,396 participants were included in this study. In subgroup 1 (IBPV vs. TAP), patients undergoing IBPV had a less degree of regurgitation at 1-2 years after the surgery. The reintervention rate increased in the IBPV group at 5 years. In subgroup 2 (pulmonary valve reconstruction vs. TAP), the degree of regurgitation decreased in the pulmonary valve reconstruction group at 1 month after the surgery. In subgroup 3 (valve-sparing operation vs. TAP), the comparison demonstrated decreased rates for surgical mortality and reintervention at 5-10 years after the surgery. Conclusion: We proposed that pulmonary valve function in a radical operation for ToF was preserved. IBPV, pulmonary valve reconstruction, and commissurotomy and PCA can be performed during the surgical procedure based on the developmental status and anatomical characteristics of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), pulmonary valve, and pulmonary artery. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42022300987].
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".