Meta-analysis of the efficacy of endoscopic surgery and traditional surgery in the treatment of submandibular gland benign tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Objective:] To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of endoscopic versus conventional surgery for the treatment of benign submandibular gland tumors. [Methods:] Databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, EMBase, and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the search strategy, with the search period up to January 1, 2024. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and a Meta-analysis was subsequently performed. [Results:] A total of 9 studies were included, comprising 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 8 non-randomized controlled trial (nRCT), with a total of 356 patients, 153 in the endoscopic group and 203 in the traditional group. Meta-analysis results indicated that the endoscopic group had a significantly longer operative time than the traditional group [weighted mean difference (WMD)=13.56 min; 95% confidence interval(CI)=9.36 to 17.75 min; P<0.001]. However, the endoscopic approach demonstrated superior outcomes in postoperative satisfaction (WMD=2.85; 95% CI=2.03 to 3.67; P<0.001), incision length (WMD=–17.60 mm; 95% CI=–30.74 to –4.47 mm; P<0.01), and intraoperative blood loss (WMD=–16.32 mL; 95% CI=–26.67 to –5.97 mL; P<0.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in tumor diameter (WMD=–0.19 mm; 95% CI=-2.91 to 2.54 mm; P=0.89), postoperative drainage volume (WMD=–5.53 mL; 95% CI=–14.16 to 3.10 mL; P=0.21), the incidence of facial nerve injury [ (odds ratio, OR) = 0.82; 95% CI=0.25 to 2.71; P=0.74], the incidence of great auricular nerve injury (OR=2.40; 95% CI=0.36 to 16.18; P=0.37), or the average length of stay (WMD=–1.2 days; 95% CI=–3.25 to 0.84 days; P=0.25). [Conclusion:] Based on the current limited evidence, endoscopic surgery for benign submandibular gland tumors can significantly shorten incision length, reduce intraoperative blood loss, and improve postoperative patient satisfaction, but prolongs operative time.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".