Concordance in bacterial colonization profiles between voice prostheses and oral microbiota post-laryngectomy: An experimental study.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
Knowledge about voice prosthesis microbial colonization is vital in laryngectomized patients' quality of life (QoL). Herein, we aimed to explore the relationship between oral microbial patterns, demographic variables and voice prosthesis performance.
METHODS
Thirty laryngectomy patients were assessed for microbial colonization in their voice prostheses and oral cavities. Factors like age, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) usage, and alcohol consumption were considered.
RESULTS
Participants' average age was 74.20 ± 7.31 years, with a majority on PPIs. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacterium in prostheses (53 %), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (27 %). Candida albicans was the primary fungal colonizer (67 %). A statistically significant moderate correlation was found between fungal species before and after oral rinsing (p = 0.035, Phi=0.588, Cramer's V = 0.416). Voice prosthesis and oral cavity microbiota profiles showed significant concordance (kappa=0.315, p < 0.004). Among subgroup analyses, bacterial patterns of colonization did not significantly influence VHI (p = 0.9555), VrQoL (p = 0.6610), or SF-36 (p = 0.509) scores. Conversely, fungal patterns of VP colonization significantly impacted subjective voice scores, with Candida krusei demonstrating better VHI (35.25 ± 3.63 vs. 44.54 ± 6.33; p = 0.008), VrQoL (7.13 ± 1.69 vs. 10.73 ± 2.00; p = 0.001), and SF-36 (69.36 ± 7.09 vs. 76.50 ± 7.73; p = 0.051) scores compared to C. albicans.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a significant correlation between the oral microbiota and voice prosthesis colonization. These insights can inform improved care strategies for voice prostheses, enhancing patient outcomes.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.