The Laryngoscope · 2014
Comparison of voice outcome after vocal fold augmentation with fat or calcium hydroxylapatite.
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.
Lodder Wouter L, Dikkers Frederik G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the short-term voice outcomes of vocal fold augmentation using fat compared to calcium hydroxylapatite product Radiesse Voice (Merz Aesthetics).
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study design.
METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive patients with vocal fold insufficiency were recruited, including the final 33 patients treated with fat and all 33 patients treated with calcium hydroxylapatite product. Before April 2011, fat augmentation was the standard treatment; from April 2011, only calcium hydroxylapatite product was used. For all subjects, videolaryngostroboscopic evaluation, s/z ratios, and voice handicap index (VHI) were analyzed.
METHODS: Treatment outcomes were evaluated 3 months after the augmentation. Two patients augmented with fat (both after 6 months), versus four augmented with calcium hydroxylapatite product (mean after 7 months), needed reintervention. Mean VHI decreased from 18 points in the fat augmentation group compared to 17 points in the calcium hydroxylapatite group. Mean s/z ratio changed -0.33 in the fat augmentation group compared to -0.46 in the calcium hydroxylapatite group.
CONCLUSION: This retrospective cohort demonstrates that there are no short-term differences in VHI outcome or number of reinterventions for augmentation with fat compared to calcium hydroxylapatite product Radiesse Voice (Merz Aesthetics).
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study design.
METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive patients with vocal fold insufficiency were recruited, including the final 33 patients treated with fat and all 33 patients treated with calcium hydroxylapatite product. Before April 2011, fat augmentation was the standard treatment; from April 2011, only calcium hydroxylapatite product was used. For all subjects, videolaryngostroboscopic evaluation, s/z ratios, and voice handicap index (VHI) were analyzed.
METHODS: Treatment outcomes were evaluated 3 months after the augmentation. Two patients augmented with fat (both after 6 months), versus four augmented with calcium hydroxylapatite product (mean after 7 months), needed reintervention. Mean VHI decreased from 18 points in the fat augmentation group compared to 17 points in the calcium hydroxylapatite group. Mean s/z ratio changed -0.33 in the fat augmentation group compared to -0.46 in the calcium hydroxylapatite group.
CONCLUSION: This retrospective cohort demonstrates that there are no short-term differences in VHI outcome or number of reinterventions for augmentation with fat compared to calcium hydroxylapatite product Radiesse Voice (Merz Aesthetics).
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.