Salvage laryngectomy and laryngopharyngectomy: Multicenter review of outcomes associated with a reconstructive approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgeons have developed various reconstructive techniques to minimize the rate of pharyngocutaneous fistula and optimize functional outcome after salvage laryngectomy or laryngopharyngectomy. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective review at 33 institutions of 486 patients with a history of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the larynx or hypopharynx previously treated with primary chemoradiotherapy (CRT) who required salvage surgery. Outcomes evaluated were overall fistula rate, fistula requiring reoperation, and 12-month speech and swallowing function. RESULTS: Primary closure of the hypopharynx was associated with a statistically higher overall fistula rate and fistula requiring reoperation compared to reconstruction with vascularized tissue augmentation. Vascularized tissue augmentation with muscle led to worse 12-month "understandability of speech" and "nutritional mode" scores compared to vascularized tissue augmentation without muscle. CONCLUSION: Vascularized tissue augmentation reduces the overall fistula rate and fistula requiring reoperation but vascularized tissue augmentation with muscle may impair speech and swallowing outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".