The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2020
Voice outcome after vocal fold injection augmentation with carboxymethyl cellulose versus calcium hydroxyapatite.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cohen J T, Benyamini L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Vocal fold injection augmentation is a recognised treatment modality for glottic insufficiency. Causes of glottal closure insufficiency include vocal fold paralysis, paresis, atrophy, sulcus vocalis, scarring and vocal fold deficiency after laryngeal surgery. A variety of materials exist for injection augmentation. This study aimed to compare voice improvement after injection augmentation between two injectable materials: carboxymethyl cellulose and calcium hydroxyapatite.
METHOD: This retrospective study included 66 consecutive patients with glottic insufficiency who underwent injection augmentation.
RESULTS: Among the patients who received their first injection augmentation with carboxymethyl cellulose and their second injection augmentation with calcium hydroxyapatite (n = 28), voice quality improved significantly after both injection augmentations. No significant differences were observed in any of the objective and subjective voice quality measurements examined following carboxymethyl cellulose and calcium hydroxyapatite injections.
CONCLUSION: Voice improvement after injection augmentation depends mainly on the improvement of glottic closure, rather than the injection material.
METHOD: This retrospective study included 66 consecutive patients with glottic insufficiency who underwent injection augmentation.
RESULTS: Among the patients who received their first injection augmentation with carboxymethyl cellulose and their second injection augmentation with calcium hydroxyapatite (n = 28), voice quality improved significantly after both injection augmentations. No significant differences were observed in any of the objective and subjective voice quality measurements examined following carboxymethyl cellulose and calcium hydroxyapatite injections.
CONCLUSION: Voice improvement after injection augmentation depends mainly on the improvement of glottic closure, rather than the injection material.