Primary versus staged repair for tetralogy of Fallot in symptomatic neonates: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice between primary repair and staged repair strategy for Tetralogy of Fallot remains a subject of debate in clinical practice. This review aims to compare the outcomes and efficacy of two surgical approaches in managing Tetralogy of Fallot among neonatal populations. Literature search was conducted across seven databases, identifying a total of 1393 relevant studies. Inclusion criteria encompassed comparative studies focusing on primary repair and staged repair for Tetralogy of Fallot in neonates. Quality of included studies was assessed using The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for retrospective cohort studies. Data synthesis involved the extraction of post-operative outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed where feasible, pooling effect sizes to determine the overall impact of each repair strategy. Eight studies were selected for full-text appraisal. A total of 4464 Tetralogy of Fallot patients underwent surgical correction. The pooled mean patient age was 8.68 (±7.38) and 8.56 (±6.8) days for primary repair and staged repair, respectively. The primary repair was associated with a higher cardiac complications rate (odds ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 2.10) and transannular patch usage (odds ratio 2.62, 95% CI confidence interval 2.02 to 3.40). In contrast, staged repair was associated with longer hospital (mean difference 11.84, 95% confidence interval 9.59 to 14.10) and ICU (mean difference 3.06, 95% confidence interval 1.64 to 4.47) length of stay. However, no substantial differences were observed in terms of mortality and reintervention rates between these two approaches. The findings highlight the need for well-designed research and emphasise the importance of personalised approaches to address the intricate nature of Tetralogy of Fallot management in this population. Adjusting surgical approach to patient features may be necessary to maximise 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 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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".