Comparing Transcanal Endoscopic Ear Surgery to Post-Auricular Microscope-Guided Surgery in Pediatric Ossiculoplasty: Hearing Outcomes and Post-Operative Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares post-operative hearing outcomes and morbidity after pediatric total ossicular replacement prosthesis (TORP) ossiculoplasty with transcanal totally endoscopic ear surgery (TEES) versus a post-auricular microscope-guided (PAM) approach. PATIENTS: Forty-four children who underwent ossiculoplasty with titanium TORP after previous cholesteatoma surgery. INTERVENTION: Ossiculoplasty using TEES or PAM approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hearing outcome after ossiculoplasty was determined by post-operative air-bone gap (ABG) on audiogram nearest to 1 year after surgery. Post-operative morbidity was measured by total number of opiate doses the child received during hospital stay, along with the highest documented post-operative pain score. Comparisons were made with Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Hearing data were available for 41 patients: 21 had undergone TEES (median preoperative ABG 39 dB) and 20 had PAM surgery (median preoperative ABG 39 dB). Post-operatively at 1 year, ABG closed significantly in each group (TEES 21 dB, p = 0.003; PAM 23 dB, p = 0.01), and there was no difference between groups (p = 0.6). 57% who underwent TEES and 50% who underwent PAM surgery experienced serviceable hearing post-operatively, defined as air conduction pure-tone average (PTA) ≤ 30 dB HL. Visual analogue pain scores from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable) were available for 13 who underwent TEES and 18 who underwent PAM surgery. In children undergoing TEES, only two reported pain above 0, with the highest pain score being 4. Children undergoing PAM surgery had a median pain score of 3 (median difference = 3, p < 0.001). Children undergoing TEES required fewer weight appropriate doses of opiate analgesic (median = 0) than children who underwent PAM surgery (median = 1) (median difference = 1, p = 0.003). Children undergoing TEES had a significantly shorter surgical time (median 135 min) than those who underwent PAM surgery (median 168 min) (median difference = 33 min, p = <0.006). CONCLUSION: Hearing outcomes in TORP ossiculoplasty are similar in TEES and PAM surgery, and TEES may decrease post-operative pain.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".