Prospective Comparison of Pediatric Endoscopic Lateral Graft and Interlay Tympanoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and complications of endoscopic lateral graft (LGT) and interlay (IT) tympanoplasty. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study of totally endoscopic ear surgery (TEES) tympanoplasty. SETTING: Pediatric tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: One hundred fourteen surgeries for children with tympanic membrane perforation without cholesteatoma. INTERVENTION: Porcine-derived collagen graft tympanoplasty using either LGT or IT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Closure rates of perforation, hearing outcomes (four-tone average air conduction [AC] and air bone gap), and complications that required further surgery were assessed 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Perforation closure rates did not differ between LGT (52/59 (88%)) and IT (45/51 (88%)), (Fisher's exact p = 1.00) (four ears lost to follow-up). AC thresholds (p = 0.32) and air bone gap (p = 0.88) improved similarly after surgery with LGT (median 8.8 dB) and IT (median 7.5 dB). The proportion of ears with serviceably normal hearing (AC ≤ 30 dB HL) postoperatively was similar (LGT 40/49 (82%), IT 36/46 (78%), Fisher's exact p = 0.80). Following IT, three (6%) ears developed inclusion cholesteatoma requiring revision surgery. One (2%) LGT ear developed blunting after myringitis. CONCLUSIONS: IT and LGT provide similar perforation closure rates and hearing outcomes. When choosing between these two techniques to repair pediatric tympanic membrane perforations, LGT would seem to be preferable than IT due to the risk of inclusion cholesteatoma after IT. There is a small risk of anterior blunting after LGT.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".