Residual Cholesteatoma After Endoscope-guided Surgery in Children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endoscopes can facilitate surgery within tympanomastoid recesses that are not visible with the operating microscope. This study investigates whether use of endoscopes to guide dissection of cholesteatoma leads to lower rates of residual cholesteatoma than using the endoscope only for inspection after microscope-guided dissection. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary pediatric center. PATIENTS: Two hundred thirty-five patients with acquired or congenital cholesteatoma in children <18 years having intact canal wall surgery and follow-up >12 months. INTERVENTIONS: Comparison of group (A) microscope surgery followed by endoscopic inspection, with group (B) endoscope-guided dissection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Residual cholesteatoma rates, controlling for site of initial cholesteatoma, detection by second-stage surgery, and length of follow-up. RESULTS: Analysis of all patients showed endoscopic dissection was associated with less residua in the middle ear (risk difference = 0.12; p = 0.026, Kaplan-Meier log rank analysis; number needed to treat = 9) but not at other sites. When restricting analysis to ears that were evaluated with second look surgery, no significant reduction in residual disease was found after endoscopic dissection at any site (e.g., retrotympanic residua: 12% Group A versus 7% Group B (NS, Fisher exact test). Endoscopic dissection allowed more permeatal surgery. No complications were attributable to endoscope use. Wound complications occurred in 4% of open cases. CONCLUSION: Endoscopes enhance surgical access to tympanomastoid recesses. In conjunction with the availability of the operating microscope, angled instruments, and KTP laser, endoscope-guided dissection provides a small incremental benefit for prevention of residual cholesteatoma, and facilitates a minimally invasive approach.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it