4.5 Article

Prediction of Postoperative Vocal Fold Function After Intraoperative Recovery of Loss of Signal

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 129, 期 2, 页码 525-531

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.27327

关键词

Intraoperative neuromonitoring; continuous vagal stimulation; vocal cord palsy; loss of signal; recurrent laryngeal nerve injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis This multicenter study aimed to 1) evaluate early postoperative vocal fold function in relation to intraoperative amplitude recovery, and 2) determine optimal absolute and relative thresholds of intraoperative amplitude recovery heralding normal early postoperative vocal fold function, both after segmental type 1 and after global type 2 loss of signal (LOS). Study Design Prospective outcome study. Methods This study, encompassing nine surgical centers from four countries, correlated intraoperative amplitude recovery with early postoperative vocal fold function using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results Included in this study were 68 patients, 48 women and 20 men, who sustained transient recurrent laryngeal nerve injury during thyroid surgery under continuous intraoperative nerve monitoring. Early transient vocal fold palsy was seen in 18 (64%) of 28 patients with ipsilateral segmental LOS type 1, and in 10 (25%) of 40 patients with ipsilateral global LOS type 2. On receiver operating characteristic analysis, relative amplitude thresholds were superior to absolute amplitude thresholds in predicting vocal fold function after LOS type 2 (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.83 vs. 0.65; P = .01 vs. P = .15; Youden index 44% and 253 mu V) and LOS type 1 (AUC: 0.96 vs. 0.97; P < .001 each; Youden index 49% and 455 mu V). Amplitude recovery >= 50% of baseline after LOS always indicated intact vocal fold function. Conclusions When the nerve amplitude recovers >= 50% of baseline after segmental LOS type 1 or global LOS type 2, it is appropriate to extend completion thyroidectomy to the other side during the same session.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据