Does Velopharyngeal Closure Pattern Affect the Success of Pharyngeal Flap Pharyngoplasty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, pharyngeal flap pharyngoplasty has been the treatment of choice for treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency, regardless of velopharyngeal closure pattern. The authors hypothesize that pharyngeal flap pharyngoplasty is more effective in treating velopharyngeal insufficiency in patients with circular or sagittal velopharyngeal closure and less effective in treating the coronal closure pattern. Ninety-three patients who underwent superiorly based pharyngeal flap surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency were evaluated in a retrospective chart review. Closure pattern was determined preoperatively by nasopharyngoscopy or multiview videofluoroscopy. Nasalance was assessed preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. Nasalance during nonnasal speech was decreased on average, for all closure patterns, postoperatively. However, a significantly higher percentage of patients were corrected to normal nasalance scores in thenoncoronal group than in the coronal group (57 percent versus 35 percent, respectively) at 1 year postoperatively (p < 0.05). Surgical overcorrection, as determined by postoperative hyponasality, occurred at a rate of 13 percent in the coronal group versus 7 percent in the noncoronal group (not statistically significant). The results demonstrate that hypernasality in patients with a coronal velopharyngeal closure pattern can be improved by pharyngeal flap pharyngoplasty. This procedure, however, is more frequently effective in correcting noncoronal closure pattern velopharyngeal insufficiency than coronal pattern velopharyngeal insufficiency. The authors are now more selective in their approach to the management of velopharyngeal insufficiency and are more inclined to treat coronal pattern velopharyngeal insufficiency with sphincter pharyngoplasty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".