Can intraoperative suturing reduce the incidence of posttonsillectomy hemorrhage? A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was to compare tonsillectomy with intraoperative suturing (TIS) and tonsillectomy without intraoperative suturing (TsIS) in preventing postoperative tonsillectomy hemorrhage (PTH). Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was followed. Articles compare TIS and TsIS in preventing PTH were included. The quality of eligible studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) by two independent investigators. Random effect models were used to determine odds ratio (OR) with 95% CIs. Results: A total of 15 studies were analyzed. The pooled results showed the PTH rate was lower in the TIS group (OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88). The TIS group had a lower primary and secondary PTH rate than the TsIS group with OR values of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.30-0.64) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.54-0.90), respectively. However, suturing did not show an advantage in reducing the risk of returning to the operation room for hemostasis (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.13-2.47). Adults might benefit from the intraoperative suturing procedure (OR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.60). Patients with more than three stitches on each side had a lower PTH rate (OR: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32-0.60). Suturing the tonsillar fossa and pillars simultaneously could reduce the PTH rate (OR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.64). Conclusions: Intraoperative suturing is a good strategy for preventing PTH. More multicenter randomized controlled studies should be conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of this procedure. Level of Evidence: 5.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".