Strategies for CO<sub>2</sub> Laser Use in Laryngeal Microsurgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective We aim to systematically review the literature addressing perioperative practices for optimal use of the CO 2 laser in laryngeal transoral laser microsurgery (TOLMS), with a focus on safety. Data Sources A systematic review of publications indexed in Medline, Embase, and EBM reviews‐Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials which evaluated perioperative strategies for the use of CO 2 laser in laryngeal TOLMS was conducted. Review Methods Records obtained from the search strategy were assessed for eligibility in a 2‐step process by 2 independent researchers using the Covidence software. Results Among 2143 identified records, 103 were included in this study. The majority of studies (n = 25) focused on the use of the CO 2 laser in oncologic resection, while 20 addressed the treatment of vocal cord paralysis, 16 discussed the treatment of pediatric or congenital pathologies, 11 detailed the management of benign lesions, and 31 studies tackled other surgical indications. Strategies for safe CO 2 TOLMS were highly heterogeneous across studies and included preoperative measures (ie, related to the environment, staff preparation, patient protection, and ventilation), intraoperative precautions (ie, protection of nontarget structures, technical considerations, topical and systemic medications), and postoperative strategies (ie, related to airway protection, oral intake, vocal rest, hospitalization duration, drug regimen, and consultant follow‐up). Conclusion The results provided in this study can be used as a framework to guide the creation of laser safety protocols across institutions, guide quality improvement initiatives, the development of simulation training activities, and as a tool to facilitate resident teaching and skill assessment.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".