Contemporary management of pectus excavatum: A survey of the members of the American pediatric surgical association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widespread adoption and use of the Nuss procedure have led to numerous refinements and innovations in managing children with pectus excavatum (PE). Our aim in this project was to determine the common clinical and operative practices pediatric surgeons employ to care for children with PE. Additionally, we sought to identify opportunities to optimize current PE management strategies. A 28-question IRB-approved survey was administered electronically to all APSA members. The American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) outcomes committee sanctioned the survey content. 140 members responded to the survey. We received responses from members in 36 states, with 97% performing the Nuss procedure at either a children’s hospital or a children’s center within an adult hospital. Cryoablation is the most common pain management routine (84%), and a majority use a commercially available titanium system (60%). There is variability in the technical aspects of passing the bar, with a most common approach of right thoracoscopy with bar passage right-to-left (51%). Notably, 33% have adopted intermittent or synchronous use of bilateral thoracoscopy. Use of stabilizer plates is routine (81%). Only 56% limit activities until >12 weeks post-op, with a remainder offering more liberal return to activity. Complications experienced by the respondent or a partner included bar migration requiring reoperation (76%), hemorrhage during insertion requiring intervention (17%), and hemorrhage during removal requiring intervention (20%). The survey describes the contemporary pediatric surgeon practice patterns with respect to pectus excavatum correction, including workup, surgical indication, and the use of cryoablation. There is a wide variety of successful technical approaches. Allergy testing is not commonly used, and very few surgeons offer correction at younger than 12 years. Prolonged activity restrictions may be overly conservative. Bar migration and bleeding complications may be more common than the reported incidence. Collaborative opportunities to harmonize the factors surveyed may be indicated. IRB approval number: 00000654
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".