First Myringotomy with Insertion of a Modified Goode T-Tube: Changing the Perforation Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Goode T-Tubes (Medtronic Xomed, Inc) have a bad reputation because of their residual tympanic perforation rate. However, these long-term tubes are mostly used in patients with chronic middle ear problems. On the other hand, "safer," short-term tubes may need to be reinserted in up to 20% of children. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that modified Goode T-Tubes inserted at the first myringotomy in normal children leave a perforation rate comparable to the rate reported in the literature for short-term tubes and may be extracted safely in the outpatient clinic when eustachian tube function is thought to be adequate. METHOD: This prospective study followed 58 children (100 ears) who had their modified Goode T-Tubes electively removed in the clinic, from October 2003 to November 2004. RESULTS: We found only one persistent perforation at the third follow-up (mean time 5.2 months). The tubes had been in place for an average of 2.9 years. The perforation healing rate was inversely related to intubation duration. Adenotonsillectomy seemed to favourably influence the speed of healing. The perforations healed faster when tubes were inserted for chronic middle ear effusion compared with recurrent acute otitis media. Age, gender, and the site of intubation were not related to persistent perforation. All of the tubes spontaneously extruded (13) healed without perforation. CONCLUSION: Modified Goode T-Tubes inserted at the first myringotomy and electively extracted allow for a longer middle ear ventilation period and have a perforation rate comparable to that of short-term tubes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".