Exploring Operative Outcomes in Paediatric Adenoidectomy: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Techniques and Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Adenoidectomy is one of the commonest surgical procedures in children. Techniques vary, with different devices (curette, diathermy, plasma ablation, and microdebrider) and approaches (transnasal TN and transoral TO) in widespread use. A systematic review was performed to determine the efficacy, efficiency and outcomes of current techniques and approaches. Methods and analysis: A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL were used during the literature searches. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: 3185 studies were identified, 17 were included in the systematic review. 1799 patients underwent adenoidectomy, with a post-operative complication rate of 8.67% patients (n=156). Common complications identified included vomiting 2.33% (n=42); haemorrhage: primary 0.83% (n=15), secondary 0.72% (n=13) and nasal obstruction 1.55% (n=28). The microdebrider had the lowest levels of blood loss (TN 12.26 ml vs TO 12.65 ml; p=0.93) and reduced operating time (TN 6.47 mins vs TO 8.63 mins; p=0.25). Conclusion: Adenoidectomy remains a safe procedure with few post-operative complications. The microdebrider has some advantages over other techniques.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".