Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis After Congenital Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is variation in the literature in regard to the occurrence of unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP) after congenital cardiothoracic surgery. The objective of this study was to identify and appraise the evidence for the occurrence of UVFP after congenital cardiothoracic surgery in a meta-analysis. METHOD: A comprehensive search strategy in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted, limited to English publications. Two independent reviewers screened studies for eligibility criteria. Of the 162 identified studies, 32 (20%) met the inclusion criteria. Using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines, 2 reviewers appraised the level of evidence, extracted data, and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Weighted pooled proportion and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies (n = 5625 patients) were included. Levels of evidence varied from level 3 to 4. Among all studies, the weighted pooled proportion of UVFP was 9.3% (95% CI, 6.6% to 12.5%), and among 11 studies (n = 584 patients) that postoperatively evaluated patients with flexible nasopharyngolaryngoscopy to document presence of UVFP, the weighted pooled proportion of UVFP was 29.8% (95% CI, 18.5% to 42.5%). Twenty-one studies (n = 2748 patients) evaluated patients undergoing patent ductus arteriosus ligation surgery, and the weighted pooled proportion of UVFP was 8.7% (95% CI, 5.4% to 12.6%). Six of these (n = 274 patients) assessed all patients postoperatively, and the weighted pooled proportion of UVFP was 39% (95% CI, 18% to 63%). Pooled analyses of risk factors and comorbidities are reported. Heterogeneity and publication bias were detected. CONCLUSIONS: UVFP is a demonstrated risk of congenital cardiothoracic surgery. Routine postoperative nasopharyngolaryngoscopy for vocal fold assessment by an otolaryngologist is suggested.
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".