Does Distraction Lower Risk of VPI Compared to Conventional Maxillary Advancement? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Adolescents with Cleft Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether method of maxillary advancement in adolescents with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L) influences post-operative velopharyngeal function. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Pediatric Tertiary Care Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety-nine patients with CP ± L after LeFort I osteotomy for maxillary advancement at our institution between January 2007 and June 2019. INTERVENTIONS: LeFort I osteotomy via distraction osteogenesis (DO) or conventional osteotomy (CO). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), as measured by perceptual rating by a craniofacial speech-language pathologist. Of the 199 patients who underwent maxillary advancement, 126 were available for analysis. The DO group was younger, male, and had more severe maxillary hypoplasia. Following surgery, 17/41 (41.5%) of the DO group had new VPI, compared to just 23/85 (27.1%) of the CO group. After adjusting for cleft type and predicted maxillary advancement, however, there was not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in risk of post-operative VPI between the two surgical groups (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.40, 95% CI 0.68-2.90). Increased prevalence of VPI after DO versus CO was primarily observed among patients with a pre-operative velopharyngeal need ratio < 0.8 (PR = 2.01, 95% CI 0.79-5.10) and patients with normal velopharyngeal function pre-operatively (PR = 2.86, 95% CI 0.96-8.50). Our results suggest an increased rather than decreased risk of VPI following DO relative to CO. This association is primarily seen among those with a smaller velopharyngeal ratio or perceptually normal velopharyngeal function pre-operatively.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".