Nasal Symptoms Following Laryngectomy: A Cross-sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background After total laryngectomy, the severe reduction in nasal airflow alters the function and physiology of the nasal cavity. These anatomic and physiologic changes may in turn impact sinonasal quality of life. Objective This study sought to characterize the degree of postoperative sinonasal symptoms experienced by laryngectomees. Methods Two groups of subjects were recruited in this cross-sectional analysis: patients who previously underwent laryngectomy with or without chemoradiation for laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer and a comparison group treated with radiation but not laryngectomy. Patients underwent assessment of sinonasal symptoms using the Reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS), 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), and visual analog scales (VASs). Patients also underwent nasal endoscopy recorded and graded by blinded reviewers using the Modified Lund–Kennedy (MLK) scale. Results Thirty-six laryngectomees and 12 controls were enrolled. The total SNOT-22 was similar between the 2 groups (27.3 vs 20.3, P = .16), but the laryngectomy cohort had higher rhinologic ( P < .01), extranasal ( P = .01), and ear/face ( P = .01) subdomain scores. VAS scores were worse in the laryngectomy group for nasal congestion ( P < .01), rhinorrhea ( P < .01), postnasal drip ( P < .01), and smell ( P < .01) but not for nasal fullness ( P = .11). rTNSS (4.7 vs 2.8, P = .04) and MLK scores (2.8 vs 0.8, P < .01) were higher in the laryngectomy group. In addition, 44% and 83% of patients in the laryngectomy and nonlaryngectomy groups, respectively, subjectively reported well-controlled nasal symptoms. Conclusion Laryngectomees are likely to experience a higher degree of subjective and objective nasal disease than nonlaryngectomized patients. Postlaryngectomy nasal dysfunction may be an important aspect of quality of life impairment in the laryngectomee population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".