The Canadian Experience With Magnetic Esophageal Anastomosis: A Report From the Canadian Consortium for Research in Pediatric Surgery (CanCORPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Magnetic anastomosis is an innovative technique for establishing esophageal continuity in infants born with esophageal atresia. Few case series featuring this technology have been published, with even fewer reports on complications. We present the entire Canadian experience with this approach. METHODS: A nationwide retrospective review of all esophageal atresia patients treated with magnetic anastomoses in Canada was conducted through the Canadian Consortium for Research in Pediatric Surgery (CanCORPS). RESULTS: Magnetic anastomoses were attempted in nine patients including four Type A, two Type B, and three Type C. The median pre-operative esophageal gap was 2.9 cm (range 0.0-5.5 cm). In four patients, magnetic anastomosis was used as a salvage technique, after failed attempted primary repair. Seven patients (78 %) achieved esophageal patency after magnet insertion. Strictures developed in all successful cases and required a median of 10 dilatations (range 3-16). In one patient with a failed anastomosis, the proximal magnet perforated the proximal esophageal pouch, while in the second case, the magnets failed to couple together. One patient had an anastomosis form but required operative intervention shortly afterwards to both revise the anastomosis and address a missed proximal fistula. CONCLUSION: In the Canadian experience, magnetic anastomosis was successful in establishing esophageal continuity in most patients. However, all patients developed strictures requiring multiple dilatations, and there was a substantial risk of complications requiring additional operative procedures. Further refinement of this technique may establish magnetic anastomosis as another tool for the pediatric surgeon treating long-gap and other challenging cases of esophageal atresia.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".