European Pediatric Surgeons' Association Survey on Timing of Inguinal Hernia Repair in Premature Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article evaluates the practice patterns of European Pediatric Surgeons' Association (EUPSA) members regarding the timing of inguinal hernia (IH) repair in premature infants. METHODS: Online survey containing 29 questions distributed to EUPSA members during January 2023. RESULTS: A total of 180 responds were received. Overall, IH repair prior to discharge was favored by 60% of respondents when there was a history of incarceration and 56% when there was not. In the case of very/extremely premature infants (< 32 weeks) with no history of incarceration, fewer (43%) respondents postpone the surgery until after discharge. The majority of respondents cited the risk of incarceration as the reason for advocating surgery prior to discharge, whereas a reduced risk of apnea was the most cited reason for respondents who prefer delayed surgery. Open approach under general anesthesia was favored by 54% of respondents, with 27% of them preferring open approach with spinal anesthesia. Laparoscopic surgery for premature infants is used in 11% while 7% of them preferred in all premature infants including extremely/very premature ones. Contralateral side evaluation was never done by 40% of respondents and 29% only performed it only during laparoscopic repair. The majority of respondents (77%) indicated that they have an overnight stay policy for premature infants < 45 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSION: There is variation in the practice patterns of pediatric surgeons in the treatment of IH in premature infants. Due to the concern for the high risk of incarceration, IH repair before discharge was the most prevalent practice. Lower risk of postoperative apnea was cited as the most common reason for delaying surgery. Randomized studies are required to establish the optimal timing for IH repair in premature infants.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".