Tympanostomy Tubes Under Local Versus General Anesthesia for Children: A Prospective Long‐Term Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tympanostomy tube insertion (TTI) under local anesthesia (LA) is gaining popularity but literature comparing long-term outcomes for children undergoing TTI under LA versus general anesthesia (GA) is limited. This study compares the long-term quality of life (QoL) between LA and GA in children undergoing TTI. Secondary objectives included long-term behavioral changes, parental satisfaction, tube durability, and postoperative complications. METHODS: We prospectively followed children aged under 6 who underwent TTI, under LA or GA, 2 years prior. We assessed QoL using validated scales (OM6, PedsQL), analyzed behavioral changes and parental satisfaction through qualitative scales, and retrieved data on tube durability and non-immediate complications. RESULTS: A total of 84 children (LA = 42; GA = 42) had complete data and a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Demographic data were similar, except for younger patients in the LA group (1.4 vs. 1.9 years, p = 0.02). LA group exhibited increased fear of health care professionals following TTI (LA: Likert scale 2.1/5, GA: 1.5/5, p = 0.04). Tube retention rate was shorter in the LA group (at 15 months: GA:72%, LA:50%, p = 0.039). Two years post-TTI, there were no differences regarding QoL (OM-6 score; LA: 15.2/100, GA: 21.4/100, p = 0.18, and PedsQL score; LA: 84.3/100, GA: 83.8/100, p = 0.90), parental satisfaction with anesthesia (GA: 4.5/5, LA: 4.6/5, p = 0.56), and postoperative complications (GA: 3/42, LA: 7/42, p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: TTI under LA in children is associated with an increased fear of health care professionals and shorter functionality of tympanostomy tubes as compared to GA. No difference was observed in long-term QoL, parental satisfaction, and complications rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:5178-5183, 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".