MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1919864931 · doi:10.1002/hed.23742

Prophylactic pectoralis major muscle flap in prevention of pharyngocutaneous fistula in total laryngectomy after radiotherapy

2014· article· en· W1919864931 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annie-Kim Gendreau-Lefèvre, Nathalie Audet, Scott Maltais, François Thuot

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaryngectomyMedicineSurgeryFistulaPectoralis major muscleComplicationRadiation therapyRetrospective cohort studyLarynx

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of the pectoralis major muscle flap (PMMF) in the prevention of pharyngocutaneous fistula for total laryngectomy after radiotherapy (RT) METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 166 patients who underwent a total laryngectomy after RT between 1998 and 2012 at the CHU de Québec. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients underwent a total laryngectomy with primary pharyngeal closure alone and 51 patients received an onlay PMMF. The incidence of pharyngocutaneous fistula in the PMMF group was 14% compared to 36% when only primary closure was done (p = .004). However, the PMMF did not influence the treatment needed for the healing of this complication (p = 1.00). The development of pharyngocutaneous fistula increased the length of stay from 19 to 50 days (p < .0001) and delayed the initiation of oral diet from 15 to 25 days (p = .03). CONCLUSION: Nonirradiated tissue coverage should be routine in total laryngectomy after RT. PMMF is a good adjunct to prevent pharyngocutaneous fistula.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207