Retrospective study of the long-term results of otoplasty using a modified Mustardé (cartilage-sparing) technique.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term results and the complication rates of a cartilage-sparing otoplasty technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our study, patients who had undergone otoplasty from 1990 to 2002 inclusively were evaluated retrospectively. The study consisted of a chart review and a telephone survey. The minimum follow-up for patients was 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were long-term satisfaction rates, early complications, late complications, and rate of revisional procedures. A detailed description of the surgical technique is included. RESULTS: The overall long-term satisfaction rate was 95.7%. Early complications (< 1 month) included one case of bleeding (1.0%) and five cases of asymmetry (4.9%) between both ears, two of which required reoperations. One case of early unilateral recurrence was noted owing to trauma inflicted by another child (1.0%) and necessitated a revisional procedure. Late complications (> 1 month) included five cases (4.8%) of suture granulomas/extrusions, three (2.9%) keloids, and one case of hypertrophic scarring (1.0%). Seven cases of partial recurrence of the deformity (10.3%) were noted, six of which were unilateral and one of which was bilateral, none requiring reoperation. There was only one case of overcorrection of the deformity (1.4%). Three cases within the sample of 104 patients underwent reoperation, yielding a 2.9% rate of revision procedures. CONCLUSIONS: On long-term follow-up, the otoplasty technique used in our institution yields a high satisfaction rate and a low complication rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".