Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2008
Evaluation of open approach and injection laryngoplasty in revision thyroplasty procedures.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Andrews Brian T, Van Daele Douglas J, Karnell Michael P, McCulloch Timothy M, Graham Scott M, Hoffman Henry T
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Vocal outcomes after medialization laryngoplasty are variable and may change over time. A revision procedure via open approach or an injection laryngoplasty may be necessary to improve vocal outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine subjects were identified and stratified into group 1A (n = 9) if the allograft was repositioned/replaced, group 1B (n = 4) if the allograft was removed, and group 2 (n = 16) if an injection laryngoplasty was performed. Statistically significant differences were found between all data prerevision to postrevision (P < or = 0.05) for group 1A and group 2 when multiple paired-sample t tests were calculated for patient-reported voice severity ratings and voice impact ratings as well as clinician-reported voice ratings of grade, roughness, and breathiness. Results of group 2 were often temporary, with 10 of 16 (62.5%) subjects receiving multiple injections.
CONCLUSION: Both open revision laryngoplasty and injection laryngoplasty are successful at providing improved vocal outcomes. Results are often temporary after injection laryngoplasty and often require multiple procedures.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine subjects were identified and stratified into group 1A (n = 9) if the allograft was repositioned/replaced, group 1B (n = 4) if the allograft was removed, and group 2 (n = 16) if an injection laryngoplasty was performed. Statistically significant differences were found between all data prerevision to postrevision (P < or = 0.05) for group 1A and group 2 when multiple paired-sample t tests were calculated for patient-reported voice severity ratings and voice impact ratings as well as clinician-reported voice ratings of grade, roughness, and breathiness. Results of group 2 were often temporary, with 10 of 16 (62.5%) subjects receiving multiple injections.
CONCLUSION: Both open revision laryngoplasty and injection laryngoplasty are successful at providing improved vocal outcomes. Results are often temporary after injection laryngoplasty and often require multiple procedures.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiocompatible MaterialsChildDurapatiteFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInjectionsLarynxMaleMiddle AgedProstheses and ImplantsProsthesis ImplantationPlastic Surgery ProceduresReoperationRetrospective StudiesThyroid CartilageTreatment OutcomeVocal Cord ParalysisVoice Quality