Parotid gland sialolithiasis: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Parotid sialolithiasis represents unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges due to the anatomy of the gland and the proximity of the facial nerve. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various treatment modalities for parotid gland stones. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies were identified by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Google Scholar. Eligible observational studies and clinical trials reporting on patients with parotid stones were included. The outcomes assessed included stone-free rate, symptom improvement and the presence of any complications. A single-arm random-effects meta-analysis was performed, focusing on endoscopy-only, endoscopy-assisted and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Bias risk was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies involving 1,559 patients were analyzed. Endoscopy-assisted removal showed the highest stone-free rate (93%, 95%CI: 90-96) and symptom improvement (91%, 95%CI: 92-99) (p < 0.05). Combined endoscopic-external approaches were effective for complex stones but had higher complication rates (24%, 95% CI: 14-37). ESWL had a lower stone-free rate (58%) but aided long-term symptom control (p < 0.05). CT-navigation did not significantly enhance clearance (80%). Most complications were minor; no permanent facial nerve injuries were reported. The quality of the evidence was limited by heterogeneity and the lack of any randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy-assisted and combined approaches offer effective, gland-preserving options for parotid sialolithiasis. ESWL and laser techniques remain adjunctive but warrant further research. Prospective, standardized trials are needed to define any optimal management strategies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".