Postlaryngectomy pharyngocutaneous fistula: determining the risk of preoperative tracheostomy and primary tracheoesophageal puncture.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article considers whether preoperative tracheostomy and primary tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) contribute as independent risk factors to the development of pharyngocutaneous fistula (PCF), as well as discusses the significant factors related to the perioperative management of these patients. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected on 145 patients treated with total laryngectomy/pharyngolaryngectomy between January 2003 and July 2010 at the Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario, including whether preoperative tracheostomy or primary TEP was performed. RESULTS: One in four (25%) patients developed a postoperative PCF. No increase in PCF rates was observed with either preoperative tracheostomy or primary TEP. Salvage surgery PCFs achieved lower rates of spontaneous closure compared to those undergoing primary surgery (p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Neither preoperative tracheostomy nor primary TEP was associated with the development of PCF. Surgical closure of PCF is more likely to be required in the setting of salvage surgery.
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".