Residual Cholesteatoma After Endoscope-guided Surgery in Children
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.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".