Evaluating Postoperative Pain in Monopolar Cautery Versus Harmonic Scalpel Tonsillectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare postoperative pain between monopolar cautery tonsillectomy and harmonic scalpel tonsillectomy (HST). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial using paired organs. SETTING: Community hospital with academic affiliation. SUBJECTS: One hundred and fourteen consecutive patients six years of age or older undergoing tonsillectomy for indications of hypertrophy or recurrent infection. METHODS: For each subject, monopolar cautery tonsillectomy was performed by four senior surgeons on one side and HST was performed on the other side. Allocation of technique to side was randomized and revealed to the surgeon at the start of the operation. Validated visual analog pain scales were used to quantify pain at rest and with swallowing for each side and were completed daily for 14 days. All subjects were prescribed weight-equivalent doses of analgesics. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative complications (hemorrhage and readmission). RESULTS: Pairwise comparisons of pain scores revealed no significant difference between monopolar cautery tonsillectomy and HST (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects undergoing monopolar cautery tonsillectomy do not experience increased postoperative pain in comparison to HST.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".