Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2024
Voice Rehabilitation After Laryngeal Transplantation: Own Experience.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Mackiewicz-Nartowicz Hanna, Nawrocka Lidia, Burduk Paweł, Sinkiewicz Anna
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laryngeal transplantation (LT) remains an infrequently performed procedure due to well-defined and limited medical indications. The challenges include a very complicated surgery, continuous immunosuppressive treatment, as well as post-transplant rehabilitation of voice, speech, and swallowing. The aim of this paper is to describe a model of voice and speech rehabilitation after LT, based on our own experience.
STUDY DESIGN: Observational study.
METHOD: Presented here are the rehabilitation processes of two patients who had previously undergone LT as well as their pre- and postrehabilitation voice outcomes. Both patients underwent voice, speech, and swallowing rehabilitation in the fifth month after LT.
RESULTS: One of the patients had a significant improvement in voice quality. While, the other did not regain his natural, sonorous voice, but he scored very high on a voice self-assessment test.
CONCLUSION: Voice rehabilitation after LT is a complex and long-term process that requires the involvement of a team of specialists. The optimal anatomical conditions restored during surgery, the patient's motivation and the support of professionals make it possible to return to normal verbal communication.
STUDY DESIGN: Observational study.
METHOD: Presented here are the rehabilitation processes of two patients who had previously undergone LT as well as their pre- and postrehabilitation voice outcomes. Both patients underwent voice, speech, and swallowing rehabilitation in the fifth month after LT.
RESULTS: One of the patients had a significant improvement in voice quality. While, the other did not regain his natural, sonorous voice, but he scored very high on a voice self-assessment test.
CONCLUSION: Voice rehabilitation after LT is a complex and long-term process that requires the involvement of a team of specialists. The optimal anatomical conditions restored during surgery, the patient's motivation and the support of professionals make it possible to return to normal verbal communication.