Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2008
Functional benefit after modification of radial forearm free flap for soft palate reconstruction.
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.
Kim Jin-Hwan, Chu Hyung-Ro, Kang Jeong-Min, Bae Woo-Jin, Oh So-Jung, Rho Young-Soo, Ahn Hwoe-Young, Jung Chul-Hoon
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the velopharyngeal function, swallowing and speech of the conventional and modified radial forearm free flap (RFFF) for soft palate reconstruction.
METHODS: Retrospective clinical study. Twenty-eight patients who underwent oropharyngeal reconstruction with RFFF were divided into two groups: 10 patients had conventional folded RFFF and 18 patients underwent modified method.
RESULTS: The average speech intelligibility score in modified RFFF group was 8.0+/-2.4, and 6.2+/-2.2 in conventional RFFF group (P<0.05). The nasalance was 27.4+/-7.8% in modified group and 38.6+/-2.7% in conventional group during no nasal passage reading and 43.6+/-7.3% in modified group, 55.2+/-7.6% in conventional group during high nasal passage reading (P<0.05). The subjective swallowing functional score was 2.8 in modified group and 2.1 in conventional group.
CONCLUSION: The speech assessment and nasalance demonstrate a more favorable outcome in modified group than conventional group.
METHODS: Retrospective clinical study. Twenty-eight patients who underwent oropharyngeal reconstruction with RFFF were divided into two groups: 10 patients had conventional folded RFFF and 18 patients underwent modified method.
RESULTS: The average speech intelligibility score in modified RFFF group was 8.0+/-2.4, and 6.2+/-2.2 in conventional RFFF group (P<0.05). The nasalance was 27.4+/-7.8% in modified group and 38.6+/-2.7% in conventional group during no nasal passage reading and 43.6+/-7.3% in modified group, 55.2+/-7.6% in conventional group during high nasal passage reading (P<0.05). The subjective swallowing functional score was 2.8 in modified group and 2.1 in conventional group.
CONCLUSION: The speech assessment and nasalance demonstrate a more favorable outcome in modified group than conventional group.