Vertical Partial Laryngectomy With Temporoparietal Free‐Flap Reconstruction for Recurrent Laryngeal Cancer: Long‐Term Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Treatment options for recurrent early glottic carcinoma's include conservative and radical surgical options. These options offer similar survival benefits with different impacts of patient's quality of life. We previously present our experience with vertical partial laryngectomy (VPL) and showed high locoregional control rates with high-quality voice results and normal swallowing. Study Design: A long-term retrospective review. Setting: Tertiary Care Center. Methods: We analyzed all patients underwent VPL between the years 1995 to 2018. Long-term oncologic and functional outcomes were collected. Results: A total of 40 patients were included. The majority of whom were male (n = 38, 95%) with a mean age of 64.9 years (SD ± 9.5). With a median follow up time of 12 years (range 0-24), 9 patients (22.5%) had disease recurrence; the majority of whom (8 patients), had local recurrence and all were salvaged with total laryngectomy. Eight patients (20%) developed second primaries in the head and neck region with a median time to diagnosis of 77 months (range 8-227 months). Ten-years overall survival, disease specific survival, and local disease-free survival were 80%, 90%, and 80%, respectively. Five patients had postoperative laryngeal dysfunction with a total 10-years laryngectomy free survival of 70%. Conclusion: VPL has a sustainable oncologic outcome with a high long-term laryngectomy free survival rate. This entity is an acceptable conservative salvage option for selected postradiated recurrent laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".