Comprehensive meta-analysis of surgical procedure for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: thoracoscopic versus open repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous studies have shown a higher recurrence rate and longer operative times for thoracoscopic repair (TR) of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) compared to open repair (OR). An updated meta-analysis was conducted to re-evaluate the surgical outcomes of TR. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search comparing TR and OR in neonates was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement (PROSPERO: CRD42020166588). RESULTS: Fourteen studies were selected for quantitative analysis, including a total of 709 patients (TR: 308 cases, OR: 401 cases). The recurrence rate was higher [Odds ratio: 4.03, 95% CI (2.21, 7.36), p < 0.001] and operative times (minutes) were longer [Mean Difference (MD): 43.96, 95% CI (24.70, 63.22), p < 0.001] for TR compared to OR. A significant reduction in the occurrence of postoperative bowel obstruction was observed in TR (5.0%) compared to OR (14.8%) [Odds ratio: 0.42, 95% CI (0.20, 0.89), p = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: TR remains associated with higher recurrence rates and longer operative times. However, the reduced risk of postoperative bowel obstruction suggests potential long-term benefits. This study emphasizes the importance of meticulous patient selection for TR to mitigate detrimental effects on patients with severe disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".