Indications for Interventional Arteriography in Post-tonsillectomy Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of post-tonsillectomy hemorrhage (PTH) and required measures of treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Department of Otolaryngology-Plastic Head and Neck Surgery, St. Anna Hospital, Duisburg, Germany. METHODS: The charts of 5,539 patients at risk for PTH (post-tonsillectomy) and seen in our department between 1988 and 1998 were reviewed including 65 patients primarily operated on elsewhere. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success and failure of surgical methods. RESULTS: Surgical treatment of PTH was necessary in 145 of our patients (2.65%). Owing to recurrent bleeding in 7 patients, 153 surgical procedures to stop bleeding became necessary. There was one case with lethal outcome (0.018%). Massive bleeding indicated ligature of the external carotid artery (ECA) in 5 patients (0.09%). Despite this procedure, hemorrhage recurred in another 3 patients, all of whom had undergone tonsillectomy elsewhere. In 2 of these cases, arteriography revealed arterial blood supply originating from branches of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or the carotid bulb. CONCLUSION: When ligation of the ECA is considered, a complete dissection of the ICA, ECA, and carotid bulb should be performed to exclude any vascular abnormality. In cases with unclear blood supply of the tonsillar lodge or continuous bleeding despite ligation of the ECA, immediate arteriography of the carotid artery should be indicated. If possible, simultaneous selective embolization of the bleeding vessel should be performed to replace a mutilating approach associated wit exposure and ligation of the ECA.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".