Pediatric Lateral Sinus Thrombosis: Retrospective Case Series and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A comparison between the literature and our management of pediatric patients presenting with otogenic lateral sinus thrombosis. DESIGN: A retrospective case series of five pediatric patients. SETTING: Four patients were treated at BC Children's Hospital, whereas the fifth patient was treated in New Westminster, BC. All were treated between 1994 and 2001. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted with a literature review for otogenic lateral sinus thrombosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment success was based on resolution of acute infection and neurologic symptoms. RESULTS: Five patients, four males and one female, aged 2 to 14 years were reviewed. Three patients were treated successfully without mastoidectomy. One patient received a mastoidectomy that yielded no pus or granulation tissue within the mastoid cavity. One patient required a mastoidectomy after failure to respond to bilateral myringotomy and tympanostomy tube insertion. Although no pus was seen in the mastoid cavity, perisinus pus was found after unroofing the sigmoid sinus plate; free flow of blood was obtained on needle aspiration of the sinus, and the sinus was not surgically opened. CONCLUSION: The current literature states that the management of otogenic lateral sinus thrombosis includes high-dose intravenous antibiotics with a mastoidectomy and possible opening of the sinus. In our retrospective case series, three of five patients recovered completely without mastoidectomy, and a fourth had a mastoidectomy deemed to have been unnecessary. We conclude that intravenous antibiotics and insertion of a tympanostomy tube are sufficient treatment for selected cases of otogenic lateral sinus thrombosis. Mastoidectomy with possible opening of the sinus should be reserved for patients refractory to the above conservative treatment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".