Optimizing Outcomes After Cleft Palate Repair: Design and Implementation of a Perioperative Clinical Care Pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the development process and clinical impact of implementing a standardized perioperative clinical care pathway for cleft palate repair. DESIGN: Medical records of patients undergoing primary cleft palate repair prior to pathway implementation were retrospectively reviewed as a historical control group (N = 40). The historical cohort was compared to a prospectively collected group of patients who were treated according to the pathway (N = 40). PATIENTS: Healthy, nonsyndromic infants undergoing primary cleft palate repair at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. INTERVENTIONS: A novel, standardized pathway was created through an iterative process, combining literature review with expert opinion and discussions with institutional stakeholders. The pathway integrated multimodal analgesia throughout the perioperative course and included intraoperative bilateral maxillary nerve blocks. Perioperative protocols for preoperative fasting, case timing, antiemetics, intravenous fluid management, and postoperative diet advancement were standardized. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes include: (1) length of hospital stay, (2) cumulative opioid consumption, (3) oral intake postoperatively. RESULTS: < .001). There were no differences in total anesthesia time, total surgical time, or complication rates between the control and treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a standardized perioperative clinical care pathway for primary cleft palate repair is safe, feasible, and associated with reduced length of stay, reduced opioid consumption, and improved oral intake postoperatively.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".