Perception and duration of pain after office‐based vocal fold injection augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: In-office laryngology procedures are important in the treatment of voice and swallowing disorders. Patient tolerance determines which procedures can be performed without sedation or formal anesthesia. This study examines pain perception during and after in-office vocal fold injection augmentation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients scheduled for office-based vocal fold injection augmentation were prospectively enrolled at an academic voice center. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire was administered before, during, and after the procedure and on postprocedure days 1, 3, and 7. Pre- and postprocedure vital signs were recorded and heart rate was continuously monitored. Telephone questionnaires were completed on postprocedure days 1 and 3. RESULTS: Forty-five patients consented to participate in our study (24 males, mean age 61 years). Most patients experienced mild to moderate pain with increasing heart rate during the procedure. Pain remained or increased 20 minutes after the procedure and improved but persisted for 1 day. Sensory and affective discomfort was endorsed by the majority. A minority of patients experienced bruising and changes in swallowing with diet modification for 3 days after the procedure. Sixteen percent had discomfort after 1 week. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study examining patient perception of pain during and after in-office injection augmentation using a validated scale and pain descriptors with extended follow-up. The results may offer guidance for patient counseling, consent, and treatment to improve tolerance and success. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:929-934, 2018.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".