Evaluation of Trans-Anal Endorectal Pull-Through Outcomes in Hirschsprung’s Disease in Different Age Groups: A Comprehensive Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The timing of trans-anal endorectal pull-through (TAEPT) for Hirschsprung's disease (HD) is controversial. Early endorectal pull-through avoids the occurrence of preoperative enterocolitis. However, delayed pull-through (≥31 days) enables postnatal maturation of the anal canal and sphincter complex. The aim of this study was to identify the best age to perform trans-anal pull-through according to the literature. METHODS: This is a comprehensive systematic review. All articles published from 2010 to 2022 were searched in the Web of Science, Ovid Medline, PubMed, CINAHIL, and Embase databases, using the keywords HD, delayed or early treatment, trans-anal pull-through surgery, age, sex or gender, complications and outcomes. Articles that met the inclusion criteria with good to fair quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment and low bias score in the Cochran collaboration tool were reviewed. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were eligible to be reviewed. The overall results of this study showed that due to more common short-term complications at neonatal period and lower contrast enema diagnostic accuracy in determining the transition zone, it seems to be reasonable decision to postpone surgery until the child is several months old. There was also no difference in terms of complications and outcomes of trans-anal pull-through surgery between females and males. CONCLUSION: It is not recommended to delay surgery too much for ages over 1 year. Ages between 3 and 12 months can be a good time for interventional treatment for HD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".