Neonatal Mandibular Distraction Without a Consolidation Period: Is It Safe? Is it Effective?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Consolidation is a standard part of most post-distraction protocols. This study aims to determine whether the deliberate omission of a consolidation period following mandibular distraction (MD) in neonates with Pierre Robin sequence (PRS) affected the airway outcomes and complication rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 28 neonates with PRS who underwent MD for severe airway obstruction between 2009 and 2014 was performed. Neonates were split into 2 cohorts: those with a very short or no consolidation (no consolidation group, n = 18) and those with a traditional consolidation period (consolidation group, n = 10). RESULTS: Mean consolidation length was 25 days in the conventional consolidation group and 1.5 days in the no consolidation group (P < 0.01). Postoperatively, both groups showed equivalent improvements in their obstructive index as measured by polysomnography. Compared with the patients who underwent convention consolidation, patients in the "no consolidation" group did not require a greater number of repeat distraction, supplemental oxygen, or tracheostomy. Nor was there any significant difference in the number of complications between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: In neonates with PRS treated with MD for severe airway obstruction, the omission of a consolidation period does not appear to significantly affect the complication rate or resolution of airway obstruction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".