The palisade cartilage tympanoplasty technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tympanoplasty is a common procedure performed by Otolaryngologists. Many types of autologous grafts have been used with variations of techniques with varying results. This is the first systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis with the aim to evaluate the effectiveness of one of the techniques which is gaining popularity, the palisade cartilage tympanoplasty. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for "palisade", "cartilage", "tympanoplasty", "perforation" and their synonyms. In total, 199 articles reporting results of palisade cartilage tympanoplasty were identified. Five articles satisfied the following inclusion criteria: adult patients, minimum 6 months follow-up, hearing and surgical outcomes reported. Studies with patients undergoing combined mastoidectomy, ossicular chain reconstruction, and/or other middle ear surgery were excluded. Perforation closure, rate of complications, and post-operative pure-tone average change were extracted for pooled analysis. Study failure and complication proportions that were used to generate odds ratios were pooled. Fixed effects and random effects weightings were generated. The resulting pooled odds ratios are reported. Palisade cartilage tympanoplasty has an overall take rate of 96% at beyond 6 months and has similar odds of complications compared to temporalis fascia (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62, 1.30). The air-bone gap closure is statistically similar to reported results from temporalis fascia tympanoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage palisade tympanoplasty offers excellent graft take rates and good postoperative hearing outcomes for perforations of various sizes and for both primary and revision cases. This technique has predictable, long-term results with low complication rates, similar to temporalis fascia tympanoplasty.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".