Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Effect of Early Suturing of Tracheostomy Sites on Postoperative Patient Swallowing and Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of tracheostomy site suturing after decannulation on swallowing rehabilitation, the incidence of postoperative complications, the length of hospital stay, and overall cost saving in patients undergoing major head and neck cancer resections. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Seventy-five patients undergoing major head and neck cancer resections were block randomized to have their tracheostomy site sutured or not sutured at the time of decannulation. Two blinded speech-language pathologists conducted bedside swallowing assessments immediately after decannulation. Patients resumed oral feedings if they passed; otherwise, the assessment was repeated daily until they were able to resume oral feedings or required a G-tube. OUTCOME MEASURES: We monitored (1) time intervals during the admission from surgery to discharge, (2) the rate of aspiration, (3) complications, and (4) cost savings. RESULTS: Significant differences were seen in the mean time from decannulation and commencement of swallowing (suture arm, 0.58 days; nonsuture arm, 2.7 days; p = .013). There was also a significant difference seen for the time interval from decannulation to discharge from hospital (suture arm, 5.5 days; nonsuture arm, 8.3 days; p = .045) and for overall duration of hospital stay (suture arm, 14.6 days; nonsuture arm, 19.3 days; p = .025). The cost saving per patient in the suture group averaged $11 609, which translates to a yearly saving of 742 976 dollars. CONCLUSION: The suturing of the tracheostomy site in head and neck cancer patients after decannulation is a safe, effective, cost-saving manoeuvre that speeds the return of the patient's normal swallowing, promoting earlier discharge from the hospital.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".