Total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation and free flap reconstruction: Objective functional outcomes and systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Advanced tongue cancer is a devastating diagnosis with potential for significant morbidity after treatment. This is especially true for patients undergoing total glossectomy with laryngeal preservation (TGLP), free flap reconstruction and adjuvant radiotherapy. The goals of this study were to: 1) determine long-term objective functional and quality of life outcomes, 2) investigate the influence of rehabilitation on functional recovery and 3) determine swallowing ability in patients with TGLP. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study and systematic review of the literature. METHODS: Functional outcomes data were collected from 2000-2010. Outcomes were measured pre- and 12 months post-surgery and included: gastrostomy-tube (G-Tube) rates, swallowing transit times on video fluoroscopic swallowing studies, speech intelligibility and EORTC-H&N 35 quality of life scores. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine comprehensive long term G-Tube rates. RESULTS: Twelve patients were included and eight were still living at 12 months post-surgery. Fifty percent of patients in this study and 24% with systematic review used G-Tubes at 1 year post-surgery. Patients who could swallow did not aspirate, but more than doubled swallowing transit times. Spoken sentence intelligibility averaged 66% and mean quality of life scores improved 8.9 points 12 months post-surgery. Patients who attended >80% of swallowing and speech rehabilitation sessions demonstrated superior swallowing and speech functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although a potentially morbid treatment, TGLP and free flap reconstruction can provide good swallowing and speech outcomes as well as meaningful long-term quality of life. Regular attendance of rehabilitation sessions is imperative to optimize functional outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".