Prevalence and Risk Factors for Swallowing Dysfunction in Patients With Laryngomalacia Treated Medically and Surgically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify the prevalence, pattern, and nature of swallowing dysfunction (SwD) in a consecutive cohort of patients with laryngomalacia (LM), and to determine factors associated with a higher burden of SwD. Study Design: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients diagnosed with LM by 2 pediatric otolaryngologists between 2013 and 2022 and a minimum of 3-month follow-up. Setting: Tertiary care pediatric otolaryngology referral center. Methods: Consecutive cohort of patients less than 3 years old with LM diagnosed on flexible laryngoscopy were reviewed. Patients with incomplete follow-up, lack of swallowing assessment, and genetic conditions or syndromes were excluded. All patients underwent at minimum a systematic clinical swallowing evaluation by a speech-language pathologist specialized in pediatric dysphagia. Patients with concerning clinical exams underwent instrumental swallow evaluation (Videofluoroscopic Swallow Study [VFSS] or Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing [FEES]). The prevalence of abnormalities of clinical swallowing evaluation, instrumental swallow evaluation data, and details of management were collected. Results: Two hundred and twelve patients met criteria and were included in the final analysis. One hundred and fifteen patients (54%) had an instrumental assessment (VFSS or FEES). Of the instrumental assessments performed, 96 (69%) were abnormal. Of the total patient cohort, 55 (26%) had laryngeal penetration and/or aspiration. One hundred and seventeen (55%) had clinical or instrumental indications for intervention, with 18 (8%) requiring tube feeding. Patients with severe LM and those treated surgically had a statistically significant higher rate of penetration and aspiration. Conclusion: Patients with LM have a high burden of dysphagia requiring medical intervention. The authors advocate for routine and systematic assessment of all patients with LM for swallowing dysfunction.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".