Comparison of Tympanostomy Tubes Under Local Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia for Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tympanostomy tube insertion (TTI) is typically accomplished under general anesthesia (GA) in the operating room. We aimed to compare pain between GA and local anesthesia (LA) in surgically naïve children undergoing TTI. Secondary objectives examined patient's quality of life (QoL) and parent's satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective single-center study. SETTING: Tertiary pediatric academic center. METHODS: Consecutive children who underwent TTI under GA were compared to patients under LA. Pain standardized observational pain scales (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability Scale [FLACC], Children's hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale [CHEOPS]) were completed pre-procedure, during the first tympanostomy and second tympanostomy, and post-procedure, as well as 1 week postoperatively. General health-related QoL (PedsQL) and QoL specific to otitis media (OM-6) were measured before insertion and 1 month postoperatively. Parental satisfaction was also evaluated using a qualitative scale. RESULTS: LA group had statistically significant higher pain levels at the beginning (7.3 vs. 0), during the first tympanostomy (7.8 vs. 0), during the second tympanostomy (7.7 vs. 0), and at end of the procedure (6.9 vs. 0) with the FLACC scale (all p < 0.01). Results were similar with the CHEOPS scale. No pain was noted 1 week after surgery in either group. Both groups had similar improvement in their QoL (p > 0.05). Minor complication occurred at a similar rate (p > 0.05). Parents were equally satisfied with their choice of anesthesia in both groups when initially questioned after the procedure (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Children experienced significantly less pain under GA than LA. If LA is to be used, pain and distress-reducing strategies are critical. Shared decision-making with families is essential. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:2422-2429, 2024.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".