Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2017
Medialization Laryngoplasty After Injection Augmentation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Silva Merea Valeria, Husain Solomon, Sulica Lucian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the effect of vocal fold injection augmentation (IA) on subsequent medialization laryngoplasty (ML).
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with follow-up telephone survey was carried out.
METHODS: Clinical records of patients with unilateral vocal fold paralysis or paresis (VFP) who underwent ML between April 2006 and March 2015 were reviewed. Patients who underwent IA before ML were compared with patients who did not, with respect to demographic information, symptoms, Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), etiology of VFP, and revision rate. Among patients undergoing IA, the effects of injection material and of interval from IA to ML on revision rate were assessed. Follow-up telephone surveys were conducted to evaluate long-term outcomes using VHI-10 and a condition-specific questionnaire.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients (70 male:65 female) with vocal fold paralysis (125) or paresis (10) underwent ML (96 left:39 right). Sixty-six (48.9%) patients underwent concurrent arytenoid adduction. Fourteen (10.4%) patients required revision. Fifty-six (41.5%) patients had prior IA; five (8.9%) patients underwent revision. Seventy-nine (58.5%) patients did not have IA; nine (11.4%) patients required revision (P = 0.78). Neither augmentation material nor length of interval between last IA and ML affected the revision rate (P = 1.00; P ≥ 0.11 for all tested intervals, respectively). No difference in follow-up VHI-10 score was found between patients who had IA before ML and patients who had not (P = 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: IA does not appear to affect the revision rate or long-term outcome of subsequent ML.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with follow-up telephone survey was carried out.
METHODS: Clinical records of patients with unilateral vocal fold paralysis or paresis (VFP) who underwent ML between April 2006 and March 2015 were reviewed. Patients who underwent IA before ML were compared with patients who did not, with respect to demographic information, symptoms, Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), etiology of VFP, and revision rate. Among patients undergoing IA, the effects of injection material and of interval from IA to ML on revision rate were assessed. Follow-up telephone surveys were conducted to evaluate long-term outcomes using VHI-10 and a condition-specific questionnaire.
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients (70 male:65 female) with vocal fold paralysis (125) or paresis (10) underwent ML (96 left:39 right). Sixty-six (48.9%) patients underwent concurrent arytenoid adduction. Fourteen (10.4%) patients required revision. Fifty-six (41.5%) patients had prior IA; five (8.9%) patients underwent revision. Seventy-nine (58.5%) patients did not have IA; nine (11.4%) patients required revision (P = 0.78). Neither augmentation material nor length of interval between last IA and ML affected the revision rate (P = 1.00; P ≥ 0.11 for all tested intervals, respectively). No difference in follow-up VHI-10 score was found between patients who had IA before ML and patients who had not (P = 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: IA does not appear to affect the revision rate or long-term outcome of subsequent ML.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarboxymethylcellulose SodiumDisability EvaluationDurapatiteFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInjectionsLaryngoplastyMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionRecovery of FunctionRetrospective StudiesTelephoneTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeVocal Cord ParalysisVocal CordsVoice QualityYoung Adult