Risk factors in patients undergoing cricopharyngeal myotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cricopharyngeal myotomy for oropharyngeal dysphagia is designed to improve symptoms, but the operation can result in significant morbidity and even death. METHODS: : A retrospective analysis was carried out of all complications and deaths among 253 patients who had cricopharyngeal myotomy performed by a single surgeon. RESULTS: A single wound infection developed among 15 patients with neurological dysphagia. The same patient subsequently required laryngeal exclusion and tracheostomy. Of 139 patients treated for dysphagia secondary to muscular dystrophy, haematoma formation or infection occurred in four, and eight patients developed postoperative pulmonary complications, four of whom died from respiratory distress syndrome. Two patients with myogenic dysphagia required laryngeal exclusion with a permanent tracheostomy. Infection of the wound or retropharyngeal space was the main problem in 90 patients with a pharyngo-oesophageal diverticulum, affecting 9 per cent of the patients. Fistula was documented in three patients overall (1.2 per cent). Systemic morbidity unrelated to the technique occurred in 26 patients (10.3 per cent). CONCLUSION: Pulmonary aspiration and lethal respiratory distress occurred only in patients with myogenic dysphagia. Local infection was the main complication in those with pharyngo-oesophageal diverticulum. Persistent aspiration can lead to laryngeal exclusion or resection with permanent tracheostomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".