Patients’ and Providers’ Experience With Medialization Thyroplasty: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the patients', surgeons', and anesthesiologists' experience with procedural sedation for medialization thyroplasty (MT). METHODS: Prospective observational study. Patients undergoing MT completed the validated Quality of Recovery Scale (QoR-15) preoperatively and postoperative days (PODs) 1 and 7. Patients also completed the validated Bauer Patient's Satisfaction Questionnaire on POD1. After surgery, the surgeon and anesthesiologist filled in a Provider's survey, including the validated Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Nonparametric tests were conducted for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (47% male), median age of 67 years (IQR 15), were recruited between March 2023 and February 2025. The median QoR-15 on POD7 was 141 (IQR 23), with no significant difference from the preoperative score 138 (IQR 28) (P = 0.856). For the Bauer Questionnaire, 74.5% and 63.8% of the patients were respectively very satisfied with the anesthesia care and pain management. For "voice testing" and "closure," the RSS perception was the same for both providers in more than half of the cases (60.4% and 56.6%). The surgeons and anesthesiologists had different perceptions of patient's anxiety, movement, discomfort, optimal operating conditions, and communication with patient. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were satisfied with the procedural sedation with MT. Providers had different perceptions of the anesthesia, indicating the importance of communication for a successful surgery. This study was one of few prospective studies evaluating the patients' and providers' experience with MT.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".