Functional Outcomes of Swallowing Following Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identification and evaluation of swallowing dysfunction in patients undergoing upper airway surgery for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is limited. This study evaluated subjective swallowing function pre and postoperatively in patients undergoing multi-level reconstructive pharyngeal sleep surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively-administered Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) scores was conducted among adult patients undergoing surgery for OSA at a tertiary sleep surgery center. Preoperative and 1, 3, and 6-month postoperative time points were assessed. Patients were subdivided into two groups based on the degree of upper airway reconstruction performed. All patients underwent uvulopalatopharyngoplasty +/-tonsillectomy and tongue-base reduction. Patients undergoing Phase 1 reconstructive surgery additionally underwent tongue-base advancement procedures. RESULTS: A total 100 patients underwent airway reconstructive surgery. Forty-one patients underwent Phase 1 surgery; 59 patients underwent Mini-Phase 1 surgery. Neither group demonstrated preoperative dysphagia. Both groups experienced significant subjective dysphagia at 1-month postoperatively, which was greater among Phase 1 patients (mean EAT-10 14.8; SD 10.4) versus Mini-Phase 1 patients (mean EAT-10 6.7; SD 7.5) (p < 0.001). Swallowing function among both groups normalized by 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Phase 1 patients with pre-operative dysphagia (mean EAT-10 9.6; SD 5) demonstrated initial worsening of their swallowing postoperatively; however, reported improved swallowing versus pre-operative levels by 6 months postoperatively (mean EAT-10 3.6; SD 4.3) (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Pharyngeal surgery resulted in no significant, persistent adverse change in swallowing function. Among both groups, significant subjective dysphagia was reported at 1 month postoperatively, yet returned to preoperative levels by 6 months postoperatively. OSA patients with pre-existing dysphagia undergoing Phase 1 surgery trended towards improved swallowing function postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 133:199-204, 2023.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".