MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394914308 · doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2024.0103

Reconstruction for Salvage Laryngectomy With Limited Pharyngectomy

2024· article· en· W4394914308 on OpenAlexaff
Mauricio A. Moreno, Mark K. Wax, James Reed Gardner, Steven B. Cannady, Evan M. Graboyes, Arnaoud F. Bewley, Peter T. Dziegielewski, Sobia F. Khaja, Rodrigo Bayon, Jesse Ryan, Samer Al‐Khudari, Mark W. El‐Deiry, Tamer Ghanem, Andrew T. Huang, Rusha Patel, Kevin Higgins, Ryan S. Jackson, Urjeet A. Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaryngectomyMedicineSurgeryPerioperativeRetrospective cohort studyFistulaChemoradiotherapyCohortRadiation therapyLarynxInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Closure technique for optimization of postoperative and functional outcomes following salvage laryngectomy remains an area of debate among head and neck surgeons. Objective: To investigate the association of salvage laryngectomy closure technique with early postoperative and functional outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients from 17 academic, tertiary care centers who underwent total laryngectomy with no or limited pharyngectomy after completing a course of definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy with curative intent between January 2011 and December 2016. Patients with defects not amenable to primary closure were excluded. Data were analyzed from February 14, 2021, to January 29, 2024. Exposures: Total laryngectomy with and without limited pharyngectomy, reconstructed by primary mucosal closure (PC), regional closure (RC), or free tissue transfer (FTT). Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients were stratified on the basis of the pharyngeal closure technique. Perioperative and long-term functional outcomes were evaluated with bivariate analyses. A multivariable regression model adjusted for historical risk factors for pharyngocutaneous fistula (PCF) was used to assess risk associated with closure technique. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were determined. Results: The study included 309 patients (256 [82.8%] male; mean age, 64.7 [range, 58.0-72.0] years). Defects were reconstructed as follows: FTT (161 patients [52.1%]), RC (64 [20.7%]), and PC (84 [27.2%]). A PCF was noted in 36 of 161 patients in the FTT group (22.4%), 25 of 64 in the RC group (39.1%), and 29 of 84 in the PC group (34.5%). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing PC or RC had a higher risk of PCF compared with those undergoing FTT (PC: RR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.1-4.4]; RC: RR, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3-4.8]). Undergoing FTT was associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in risk of PCF (RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.9; number needed to treat, 7). Subgroup analysis comparing inset techniques for the RC group showed a higher risk of PCF associated with PC (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0) and predominately pectoralis myofascial flap with onlay technique (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2), but there was no association of pectoralis myocutaneous flap with cutaneous paddle interposition with PCF (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.8) compared with FTT with cutaneous inset. There were no clinically significant differences in functional outcomes between the groups. Conclusion and Relevance: In this study of patients with limited pharyngeal defects, interpositional fasciocutaneous closure technique was associated with reduced risk of PCF in the salvage setting, which is most commonly achieved by FTT in academic practices. Closure technique was not associated with functional outcomes at 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207