Evidence-based advances in minimally invasive surgery in infants with congenital gastrointestinal anomalies: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been widely utilized to manage congenital gastrointestinal (GI) anomalies in children during the last two decades. Currently, MIS has a proven track-record for its feasibility and provides multiple benefits including better cosmesis, less trauma, and faster recovery in neonates and infants. However, it remains controversial whether MIS provides better definitive outcomes in pediatric patients with GI anomalies, especially among neonates. We aim to review the recent developments of MIS in infants with GI defects, assisting surgeons in making decisions and improving patient outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Web of Science's core collection was performed using terms of MIS techniques and congenital GI anomalies. Key Content and Findings: This review summarizes recent evidence-based advances of MIS in infants with congenital GI defects and potential future strategies based on evidence. Better cosmetic results, less postoperative pain, and an accelerated recovery have been shown to be common advantages of MIS relative to open approaches. Technical hurdles and metabolic disturbance were reported to be the main reasons for the decisions of open approach. Conclusions: Advanced techniques of MIS have made more precise manipulations and better outcomes possible, even for newborns. At the same time, surgeons should not be afraid to use an open approach in certain circumstances due to technical limitations or patient tolerance. The difficulty infants face in expressing their true feelings underscores the need for systematic and objective assessment tools to evaluate surgical outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".