Outcomes of endoscopic percutaneous suture lateralization for neonatal and infantal bilateral vocal ford paralysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Bilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis (BVFP) is a rare but significant resource of respiratory distress in neonates and infants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and functional outcomes of Endoscopic Percutaneous Suture Lateralization (EPSL) for the treatment of BVFP in neonates and infants. Methods: A case series study of nine patients undergoing EPSL for BVFP between January 2019 and June 2021 was conducted. All patients were candidates for tracheostomy prior to EPSL. Demographic features including gender, age at diagnosis and surgery, main symptoms, airway comorbidities, airway support, and etiology were collected preoperatively. Patients were evaluated for breathing, swallowing and phonation postoperatively. Surgical success was defined as the ability to avoid tracheostomy. Functional Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) was conducted to identify aspiration. Voice evaluation was based on clinical observation. Results: Nine patients underwent ten EPSL procedures (one in the left vocal fold, and nine in the right vocal fold). Eight patients (8/9) were able to successfully avoid tracheostomy and feed orally without aspiration after the procedure. One patient experienced clinical improvement in respiratory support requirements and underwent laparoscopic nissen and gastrostomy tube placement. At the last follow-up, two patients regained normal voice, two patients had mild dysphonia, and five patients had moderate dysphonia. Five patients showed partial return of the contralateral vocal fold function. Conclusion: EPSL is an effective and safe treatment for neonatal and infantal BVFP, which enables patients free from tracheostomy without significant impact on swallowing function or phonation. Level of evidence: Level 4.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".