Patient Perception and Duration of Pain after Microdirect Laryngoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Postoperative pain is an important part of the patient's surgical experience. The objective was to evaluate patient perception and duration of pain after microdirect laryngoscopy (MDL). STUDY DESIGN: Case series with planned data collection. SETTING: Tertiary care, academic center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Adult patients undergoing MDL were administered the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) before surgery and on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 7. Demographic and clinical data were collected. RESULTS: In total, 130 patients (mean age 52.6 years, 84 male) participated in the study. About 46.2% required analgesia on POD 1, but only 23.1% required opioids. Overall, mild levels of pain were reported on the SF-MPQ: sensory score, affective score, total score, present pain intensity (PPI), and visual analog scale (VAS). Patients reported a significant increase in pain on POD 1, with decreases in pain on PODs 3 and 7. Pain score returned to preoperative values for total score and affective score on POD 7 but remained significantly elevated for PPI, VAS, and sensory score. None of the following factors were associated with increased pain: age, sex, body mass index, Mallampati score, Cormack score, laryngoscope used, type of MDL, time under anesthesia, employment status, intubation, Voice Handicap Index 10, and chronic pain history. CONCLUSION: Although mild levels of pain were reported after MDL, the pain persisted for up to 7 days. No demographic or clinical factors were found to be associated with increased pain. This study was one of the few prospective studies evaluating pain after MDL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".