“…In case there were inconsistencies, the complete record was checked by the other author not involved in the initial extraction of data. The following patient characteristics were extracted: sex (male/female), contrast enema (yes/no), visible caliber change on contrast enema (yes/no), location of caliber change on contrast enema (recto-sigmoid (defined as proximal to lineadentate), sigmoid, sigmoid-descendens, colon descendens, flexura lienalis, colon transversum, flexura hepatica, colon ascendens, cecum, or ileum), age at time of biopsy (weeks), type of surgery (single-stage, two-stage), total number of FTBs, pathological results of FTBs (ganglionated, aganglionated, or non-assessable), length of resected bowel specimen measured by the pathologist (cm), length of diseased segment (short-segment was defined as aganglionosis extending to the rectosigmoid, long-segment as aganglionosis extending to the proximal colon or TCA) [5], location of TZ (recto-sigmoid (defined as proximal to linea-dentata), sigmoid, sigmoid-descendens, colon descendens, flexura lienalis, colon transversum, flexura hepatica, colon ascendance, cecum, or ileum) and TZPT (yes/no). In patients in which redo surgery was performed, the following procedure characteristics were collected: intraoperative FTB (yes/no), number of intraoperative FTB, pathological result of FTB (ganglionated, aganglionated, or non-assessable) and length of resected segment measured by pathologist (cm) and TZPT (yes/no).…”