Outcomes of Prophylactic Epiglottic Petiole Suspension at the Time of Complete Laryngofissure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To compare the clinical outcomes of patients with prophylactic petiole suspension (PPS) at the time of laryngofissure and patients without PPS. Study Design Retrospective case series. Setting Tertiary pediatric hospital from May 2003 to August 2017. Subjects and Methods Patients included those undergoing airway reconstruction with complete laryngofissure. Patients in the study group had PPS at the time of laryngofissure, while control group patients did not. Results Eighty‐one patients underwent complete laryngofissure (22 study patients, 59 controls) at a median age of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 2.1‐9.7). Patients in the control group were younger at the time of the surgery (3.7 vs 6.5 years, P =. 04). Other demographic and clinical data, including subglottic stenosis (SGS) grades, were similar. For patients with SGS, 53.8% and 46.2% in the study group had a grade 1‐2 and 3‐4 SGS, respectively, as compared with 46.2% and 53.8% in the control group ( P =. 65). Manifestations of petiole prolapse included failure of decannulation (8.6%), exercise intolerance (16.0%), and obstructive sleep apnea (11.1%). After 4 years of follow‐up, 4.5% of the study group versus 27.1% of the control group had prolapse of the petiole ( P =. 04). Petiole prolapsed affected >50% of patients with no PPS after 10 years of follow‐up. Patients with petiole prolapse at the first surveillance microlaryngoscopy and bronchoscopy after stent removal had an odds ratio of 10.2 (95% CI, 1.1‐94.8; P =. 04) of becoming symptomatic. Conclusion Patients with PPS had significantly fewer symptoms after complete laryngofissure as compared with patients without PPS. PPS should be considered when a complete laryngofissure is being performed during airway reconstruction.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".