Long‐term Complications of Palate Surgery: A Multicenter Study of 217 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To investigate long-term complications of newer reconstructive palate surgery techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-series analysis. METHODS: Retrospective six-country clinical study of OSA patients who had nose and palate surgery. RESULTS: There were 217 patients, mean age = 43.9 ± 12.5 years, mean body mass index = 25.9 ± 4.7, mean preoperative apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] = 30.5 ± 19.1, follow-up 41.3 months. A total of 217 palatal procedures were performed, including 50 expansion sphincter pharyngoplasties (ESP), 34 functional expansion pharyngoplasties (FEP), 40 barbed reposition pharyngoplasties (BRP), 64 modified uvulopalatopharyngoplasties (mUPPP), 11 uvulopalatal flap procedures (UPF), nine suspension pharyngoplasties (SP), eight relocation pharyngoplasties (RP), and one z-pharyngoplasty (ZPP). Complications included were constant and/or felt twice per week; dry throat (7.8%), throat lump feeling (11.5%), throat phlegm (10.1%), throat scar feeling (3.7%), and difficulty swallowing (0.5%). Of the 17 patients who had a dry throat complaint, two were constant (one SP, one RP), 15 were occasional (10 mUPPP, three SP, two BRP). Of the 25 patients with the throat lump feeling, four were constant (three RP, one ZPP), 21 were occasional (10 mUPPP, five SP, five UPF, one BRP). Of the 22 patients with the throat phlegm feeling, four were constant (two SP, two RP), 18 were occasional (10 mUPPP, four BRP, two FEP, two SP). Of the eight patients with throat scar feeling, eight were occasional (four SP, two mUPPP, one FEP, one RP), none were constant. One patient had difficulty swallowing (RP procedure). There was no velopharyngeal incompetence, taste disturbance, nor voice change. Highest symptom complaints were mUPPP, SP, and RP, whereas the lowest symptom complaint was ESP. CONCLUSIONS: Newer palatal techniques have shown to have less long-term complications compared to the older ablative techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:2281-2284, 2020.
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".