Identifying variability in surgical practices and instrumentation for hypospadias repair across the Western Pediatric Urology Consortium (WPUC) network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although hypospadias outcomes studies typically report a level or type of repair performed, these studies often lack applicability to each surgical practice due to technical variability that is not fully delineated. An example is the tubularized incised plate (TIP) urethroplasty procedure, for which modifications have been associated with significantly decreased complication rates in single center series. However, many studies fail to report specificity in techniques utilized, thereby limiting comparison between series. OBJECTIVE: With the goal of developing a surgical atlas of hypospadias repair techniques, this study examined 1) current techniques used by surgeons in our network for recording operative notes and 2) operative technical details by surgeon for two common procedures, tubularized incised plate (TIP) distal and proximal hypospadias repairs across a multi-institutional surgical network. STUDY DESIGN: A two-part study was completed. First, a survey was distributed to the network to assess surgeon volume and methods of recording hypospadias repair operative notes. Subsequently, an operative template or a representative de-identified operative note describing a TIP and/or proximal repair with urethroplasty was obtained from participating surgeons. Each was analyzed by at least two individuals for natural language that signified specified portions of the procedure. Procedural details from each note were tabulated and confirmed with each surgeon, clarifying that the recorded findings reflected their current practice techniques and instrumentation. RESULTS: Twenty-five surgeons from 12 institutions completed the survey. The number of primary distal hypospadias repairs performed per surgeon in the past year ranged from 1-10 to >50, with 40% performing 1-20. Primary proximal hypospadias repairs performed in the past year ranged from 1-30, with 60% performing 1-10. 96% of surgeons maintain operative notes within an electronic health record. Of these, 66.7% edited a template as their primary method of note entry; 76.5% of these surgeons reported that the template captures their operative techniques very or moderately well. Operative notes or templates from 16 surgeons at 10 institutions were analyzed. In 7 proximal and 14 distal repairs, parameters for chordee correction, urethroplasty suture selection and technique, tissue utilized, and catheter selection varied widely across surgeons. CONCLUSION: Wide variability in technical surgical details of categorically similar hypospadias repairs was demonstrated across a large surgical network. Surgeon-specific modifications of commonly described procedures are common, and further evaluation of short- and long-term outcomes accounting for these technical variations is needed to determine their relative influence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".