Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2004
Revision Gore-Tex medialization laryngoplasty.
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.
Cohen Jacob T, Bates Dwight D, Postma Gregory N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the indications, results, and safety of revision Gore-Tex medialization laryngoplasty (GML).
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 156 patients that underwent GML procedures between the years 1998-2002. Study population consisted of those patients who required revision surgery for any reason.
RESULTS: Sixteen patients required 22 revision procedures. Indications for revision were divided into 2 groups, complications and glottal closure problems. Complications included extruded or displaced implants (n = 4). The most common glottal closure problem was undercorrection (n = 9). Others included anterior overcorrection (n = 1) and persistent posterior glottal gap (n = 2). Revision procedures included GML (n = 9), injection augmentation (n = 9), endoscopic implant removal (n = 2), and arytenoid adduction (n = 2). In patients with glottal closure problems, the GCI improved in all 10 and the voice rating scale improved in 9.
CONCLUSION: Reasons for revision of GML are variable, the most common being undercorrection. A variety of safe, effective revision techniques are available with a high success rate.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 156 patients that underwent GML procedures between the years 1998-2002. Study population consisted of those patients who required revision surgery for any reason.
RESULTS: Sixteen patients required 22 revision procedures. Indications for revision were divided into 2 groups, complications and glottal closure problems. Complications included extruded or displaced implants (n = 4). The most common glottal closure problem was undercorrection (n = 9). Others included anterior overcorrection (n = 1) and persistent posterior glottal gap (n = 2). Revision procedures included GML (n = 9), injection augmentation (n = 9), endoscopic implant removal (n = 2), and arytenoid adduction (n = 2). In patients with glottal closure problems, the GCI improved in all 10 and the voice rating scale improved in 9.
CONCLUSION: Reasons for revision of GML are variable, the most common being undercorrection. A variety of safe, effective revision techniques are available with a high success rate.