Surgery for Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Following Cleft Palate Repair: An Audit of Contemporary Practice and Proposed Schema of Techniques and Variations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We completed an in-depth review of the literature to develop a preliminary schema that encompassed existing VPI procedures. Forty-one cleft surgeons from twelve hospitals across the USA and Canada reviewed the schema and either confirmed that it encompassed all VPI procedures they performed or requested additions. Two surgeons then observed the conduct of the procedures by surgeons at each hospital. Standardized reports were completed with each visit to further explore the literature, refine the schema, and delineate the common and unique aspects of each surgeon's technique. RESULTS: Procedures were divided into three groups: palate-based surgery; pharynx-based surgery; and augmentation. Palate-based operations included straight line mucosal incision with intravelar veloplasty, double-opposing Z-plasty, and palate lengthening with buccal myomucosal flaps. Many surgeons blended maneuvers from these three techniques, so a more descriptive schema was developed classifying the maneuvers employed on the oral mucosa, nasal mucosa, and muscle. Pharynx-based surgery included pharyngeal flap and sphincter pharyngoplasty, with variations in design for each. Augmentation procedures included palate and posterior wall augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive schema for VPI procedures was developed incorporating intentional adaptations in technique. There was substantial variation amongst surgeons in how each procedure was performed. The schema may enable more specific evaluations of surgical outcomes and exploration of the mechanisms through which these procedures improve speech.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".