Single surgeon’s experience with Furlow palatoplasty and the fistula rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To review the clinical data on Furlow palatoplasty and the incidence of palatal fistula. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of clinical data and incidence of palatal fistula in all cleft palate patients undergoing Furlow palatoplasty by one surgeon in Princess Margaret Hospital from November 1997 to February 2003. Results: Of the 54 patients (29 male, 25 female) treated, five (9.3%) had positive family history of cleft lip/cleft palate. Twenty‐two patients (40.7%) had associated cleft lip and four (7.4%) had other congenital malformations. Thirty‐one palates were Veau classes I & II; 15 were class III, six were class IV, and two were submucous clefts. The mean ± SD patient age was 22.8 ± 11.9 months, and follow‐up period 50.6 ± 17.5 months with five (9.3%) defaulted. Blood loss and operation time were significantly different among the different classes of clefts. There was one case of postoperative bleeding requiring immediate opening. Three palatal fistulae occurred, all within the first 3 years of the study period. Two were repaired with no recurrences. Conclusions: The surgeon’s incidence of palatal fistula after Furlow palatoplasty is 5.6%, comparable to the low incidence reported by other surgeons using other methods of repair.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".