Ambulatory Adenotonsillectomy in Children Less Than 5 Years of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Post-tonsillectomy monitoring has received a significant amount of attention in recent years. Although the literature questions the safety of ambulatory adenotonsillectomy in children less than 5 years of age, age alone did not exclude eligibility for day surgery at our institution. METHOD: A retrospective chart review was performed between 1995 and 1998 for all children who had undergone adenoidectomy or adenotonsillectomy at the London Health Sciences Centre in London, ON. RESULTS: There were 119 adenoidectomies and 278 adenotonsillectomies performed. The average age was 3 years at the time of surgery. One hundred and ninety-six cases were performed for obstruction, and 201 were done for infection. Average time spent in the postanaesthesia care unit was 6 hours for adenotonsillectomy and 4.5 hours for adenoidectomy. There were 26 planned and 60 unplanned admissions. One (4/397) percent of the unplanned admissions were for postoperative hemorrhage; 14% (56/397) were for vomiting and dehydration. No cases were admitted for postoperative desaturations or hypotensive episodes. The readmission rate was 0%. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory adenotonsillectomy is a safe procedure in children less than 5 years old. However, a well-informed, reliable caretaker and support from the day surgery staff is essential in early discharge of young patients after adenotonsillectomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".