Advantages of Subannular Tube vs Repetitive Transtympanic Tube Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficiency of the subannular T-tube (SAT) vs that of the repetitive transtympanic Duravent tube (TTT) in children with recurrent or chronic otitis media (OM) with effusion or tympanic membrane retraction and to establish which population would be more likely to benefit from TTTs vs SATs. DESIGN: Medical record review. SETTING: Tertiary care pediatric center. PATIENTS: Children receiving an SAT (234 in 160 patients) or at least 2 TTTs (216 in 111 patients) between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2006, to allow at least 4 years of follow-up from that period until 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average tube duration and complication rates. RESULTS: The tubes remained in place for a median of 35 months with SAT and 7 months with TTT (P < .001). Overall complication rates were lower with SAT (otorrhea, 21.4%; perforation, 7.7%; plugged tube, 13.7%; new acute OM, 13.7%; new serous OM, 5.1%; and cholesteatoma, 1.7%) than with TTT (otorrhea, 26.9%; perforation, 5.1%; blocked tube, 20.8%; new acute OM, 23.1%; new serous OM, 37.5%; and cholesteatoma, 0.46%). Differences were statistically significant for otorrhea, blocked tube, and new acute and serous OM (P < .001). With similar rates, TTTs and SATs were used more frequently in acute (P = .26) and serous (P = .32) OM, whereas SATs were placed more often in adhesive OM and retracted tympanic membrane (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of an SAT is a safe and effective method for long-term middle ear ventilation in recurrent or refractory OM, adhesive OM, and retracted tympanic membrane. Associated with fewer complications, SATs offer an alternative to repeated use of the short-term TTTs without damaging the tympanic membrane.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".