Tonsillectomy: Vasoconstrictive hydrolytic cold dissection method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tonsillectomy, a common paediatric otolaryngology procedure, has undergone several evolutionary trends in the surgical techniques aimed at minimizing complications and improving patients' satisfaction. Despite the technological advancements in this respect, search for an ideal method is still ongoing, and some authorities are reverting back to the conventional methods. We wish to introduce the "Vasoconstrictive hydrolytic cold dissection" (VHCD) method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The VHCD method was described, and the outcome measures in one hundred and thirty-five patients who had the procedures were presented in . Data entrance was done with SPSS 14. RESULTS: A total 135 patients comprising of 107 children aged 1-12 years and 28 adolescents/adults aged 14-52 years were operated upon using the VHCD between March 2009 and July 2012 by the same teams of Surgeons and Anaesthetists. The average surgical time and blood volume losses were 15 minutes and 5 mls for children and 12 mins and 10 mls for adults/adolescents, respectively. There was a single case (0.7%) of post-tonsillar bleed (reactionary haemorrhage). The rest (99.3%) recorded nil haemorrhage within and beyond first 2 weeks post-surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons used to other techniques of tonsillectomies may not revert to the cold steel; however, those practicing CSM will benefit from VHCD. We hereby recommend this simple, cost-effective modification of the cold steel tonsillectomy, which appears to have made dissection easier and also minimizes haemorrhage, a common complication of tonsillectomy surgery. It is timely in the advent of increased advocacy towards reversal to the conventional method of tonsillectomy. A randomized control trial is required for further evaluation of this method.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".