Factors associated with epiglottic petiole prolapse repositioning success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Epiglottic petiole prolapse is an overlooked entity that could lead to supraglottic airway obstruction for patients with complex airway history. Classical symptoms include exercise intolerance, obstructive sleep apnea, and difficulty with decannulation. The goal of this project was to evaluate the factors associated with epiglottic petiole repositioning success. METHODS: Retrospective case series of patients with a complex history of airway reconstruction evaluated by the aerodigestive team at a tertiary pediatric hospital from May 2003 to August 2017. All patients underwent repositioning for petiole prolapse. RESULTS: We had a total of 59 patients (14 females, 23.7%) with complex airway anomalies with petiole prolapse noted during a microlaryngoscopy and bronchoscopy. Mean age was 12.9 ± 6.1 year old (range 1.3-35.9). Patients had a history of 2.2 (1-5) open airway surgeries, and 51 of 58 (87.9%) of them had a prior complete laryngofissure. Laryngotracheoplasty and petiole repositioning were performed as a double-stage surgery for 54 of 58 (91.5%) patients. Epiglottic petiole prolapse was persistent in 20 patients (33.9%) and became symptomatic for 14 of them (23.7%). The main preventive factor of petiole prolapse recurrence was pre-epiglottic fat debulking at the time of the repositioning, with an odds ratio of 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.007-0.6, P = 0.01). Stent placement, longer duration of stent placement, and double-stage procedure also increased the likelihood of success (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with petiole prolapse have a history of complete laryngofissure and multiple open airway surgeries. Pre-epiglottic fat debulking and longer stent placement at the time of the repositioning surgery appear to significantly increase the long-term success rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 129:1984-1988, 2019.
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 | 0.000 | 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".