Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture for voice rehabilitation in laryngectomy patients: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among voice restoration options following laryngectomy, tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) appears to be the most common. Currently, there is no consensus that exists with regard to the timing of performing TEP and the decision to perform a primary or secondary TEP has mostly been based on physician preference and expert opinion rather than data. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: The objective of this study was to compare primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) for voice rehabilitation in laryngectomy patients in terms of success and complication rates. TYPE OF REVIEW: A systematic review of studies in the English literature was conducted for studies that directly compared primary and secondary TEP. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (January 1948-15 July 2016), EMBASE (January 1974-15 July 2016) and Web of Science (January 1970-15 July 2016) was performed. EVALUATION METHOD: Two authors (KL/BAC) independently reviewed titles and abstracts, read full-text papers, extracted data and assessed quality. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. A third author (DV) resolved disagreements between reviewers when consensus was not possible. RESULTS: Eleven retrospective clinical cohort studies were included. No randomised controlled trials were identified. Newcastle-Ottawa score for assessment of quality ranged from 5 to 7. Success rate was defined differently across most studies. Two studies found higher success with primary TEP compared to secondary TEP; nine studies found no difference. Voice outcomes were inconsistently measured; no difference between groups was found in 4 studies. Complication rates were divided into TEP site related, infectious and stenosis. No difference between primary and secondary TEP was found in all but one study which showed a higher rate of pharyngocutaneous fistula in the primary TEP group in salvage laryngectomy patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is no robust evidence to suggest that primary TEP is associated with poorer outcomes compared to secondary TEP. A well-designed randomised controlled trial is required to appropriately answer this question.
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 | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".