Injection Medialization in Infants with Vocal Fold Immobility Improves Dysphagia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unilateral vocal fold immobility (VFI) is a known cause of morbidity amongst children following congenital heart surgery. Injection medialization (IM) provides medial distraction and improves glottic closure. Limited objective data is available for the effect of IM in young children (<2 years-old) with VFI. METHODS: Retrospective case series of infants <2 who underwent IM for VFI after congenital cardiac surgery. Primary outcome was objective reduced risk of aspiration based on Dysphagia and Outcome Severity Scores (DOSS) on Video swallow study (VFSS) performed prior to and within 4 weeks following IM. Secondary analysis included perioperative complications and number of children who were able to avoid NG or G tube placement. RESULTS: 17 children <2 years of age had unilateral VFI after congenital cardiac surgery and underwent IM. The median age at time of initial cardiac surgery was 6 days (IQR 3-7). There was no intraoperative or postoperative stridor or associated complications. All 17 patients had preoperative aspiration noted on VFSS. Average swallowing outcomes on VFSS improved after IM with an increase in DOSS score (preop score 3 (IQR 2-4) to postop score 6.5 (IQR 5-7) [P = 0.001]). At 2 months following IM, of the patients who had improvement in swallowing function, 50% (n = 6) were able to feed completely orally, 25% (n = 3) were fed orally with an NG wean, and 3 (25%) had a G tube placed. CONCLUSION: Initial results suggest that IM is safe and improves early objective swallowing outcomes in children <2 years old with VFI after congenital cardiac surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 134:4396-4401, 2024.
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".