Effect of lingual and hypoglossal nerve reconstruction on swallowing function in head and neck surgery: prospective functional outcomes study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect on oral swallowing function of reanastomosis of lingual and hypoglossal nerves divided and reconstructed during head and neck cancer surgery and to determine the importance (if any) of sensory reconstruction in oral cavity cancer surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Forty-four patients underwent resection and free tissue reconstruction of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between January 1999 and September 2006. Postoperative lingual and hypoglossal nerve status was recorded. All patients were scheduled to undergo videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSSs) pre- and 12 months postoperatively. The oral residue score, bolus oral transit time, and aspiration score were recorded for all patients completing the assessments. RESULTS: The oral transit time and oral residue score increased in patients with both lingual and hypoglossal nerves resected. Oral swallowing efficiency was preserved if one or both of the lingual and hypoglossal nerves were preserved or reconstructed following cancer resection. Ninety-one percent of patients swallowed safely at 12 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Loss of both the lingual (sensory) and hypoglossal (motor) supply of parts of the oral cavity has a detrimental effect on oral swallowing. If either the sensory or the motor supply to these regions can be preserved or reconstructed, oral swallowing efficiency can be maintained. During oral cancer extirpation, removal of muscular structures often negates possible motor reconstruction. This increases the need for sensate reconstruction of oral cavity defects via primary reanastomosis of nerves or sensate free tissue transfer to preserve oral swallowing efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".