Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis: An Institutional Review of Outcomes With a Multimodality Surgical Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This article reports on a unique cohort of patients with idiopathic subglottic stenosis spilt fairly equally between endoscopic and open surgical approaches. Patients’ sequence of operations and reinterventions over time are outlined, offering insight to improve surgical counseling and allow for informative, autonomous patient decision making. Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary care academic center. Methods Cases of consecutive adults with idiopathic subglottic stenosis managed surgically over a 12‐year period (January 2006–December 2017) were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical workflow, complications, and outcomes, including reinterventions and tracheotomy dependence, are reported. Results Seventy‐two patients (71 women; mean age, 50.4 years) with idiopathic subglottic stenosis requiring surgical airway intervention were identified. Six patients underwent tracheotomy prior to attempt at airway stenosis surgery. Initial surgical approach thereafter included endoscopic (73.5%, n = 53) and open (26.4%, n = 19) procedures. Thirty‐one patients underwent cricotracheal resection; the reintervention rate was 22.5%. Sixty patients underwent 147 endoscopic procedures; the reintervention rate was 75.5%, and the mean time between dilations was 83 weeks (range, 5‐402). Two (2.8%) patients remain tracheotomy dependent. Adverse events were significantly higher in the cricotracheal group, especially with respect to dysphonia and temporary gastrostomy tube placement ( P <. 01). Conclusions Endoscopic and open surgical airway intervention can be employed successfully to avoid tracheotomy dependence and maintain airway patency; however, multiple procedures are usually required, regardless of surgical approach. Cricotracheal reintervention rates are lower than endoscopic dilation but with increased morbidity. Quality‐of‐life outcomes should be clearly discussed with patients before deciding on a surgical management strategy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".