Endoscope or microscope‐guided pediatric tympanoplasty? Comparison of grafting technique and outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To review experience from the introduction of totally endoscopic ear surgery (TEES) to a pediatric tympanoplasty practice to identify factors influencing technique selection and successful outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Analysis of prospectively acquired data from a consecutive series of 295 surgeries for tympanic membrane perforation over a 12-year period. Success of perforation closure was compared between microscope and TEES grafting techniques. Impact of the acquisition of endoscopic techniques and equipment were compared with annual proportion of cases completed by TEES. RESULTS: Of 267 tympanoplasties, 109 (41%) were completed with TEES and 158 by a postauricular approach. The proportion completed with TEES increased gradually to 97% of cases as equipment and expertise were acquired. Young age did not prevent TEES tympanoplasty. Two hundred nineteen of 250 (88%) perforations were closed successfully by tympanoplasty, with equivalent closure rates between TEES and postauricular approaches. Underlay of tragal perichondrium was less successful than lateral graft technique using TEES (P = .04, Fisher exact test). "Push-through" myringoplasty using a microscope or endoscope was least successful (19 of 28 (68%), P = .005). The median length of stay was 13 hours shorter for TEES than postauricular tympanoplasty (P = .04, Mann-Whitney rank sum test). Wound complications occurred in five (3%) postauricular cases and one TEES case. CONCLUSIONS: TEES tympanoplasty is feasible in a large majority of children given appropriate equipment and surgical experience. Nonautogenous graft material is ideal for this minimally invasive approach. TEES is recommended as providing equivalent likelihood of perforation closure to the post-auricular approach but with less postoperative morbidity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b. Laryngoscope, 127:2659-2664, 2017.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".