4.5 Article

Voice Quality after Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Resection and Immediate Reconstruction

期刊

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
卷 147, 期 4, 页码 733-736

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0194599812449108

关键词

thyroid; recurrent laryngeal nerve; voice quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate clinician perception of voice quality, patient self-reported psychosocial impact of dysphonia, and glottic closure in patients who have undergone resection of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) and immediate operative reconstruction during thyroid surgery. Study Design. Prospective observational study. Setting. Single tertiary care hospital. Subjects and Methods. Nine patients underwent immediate operative reconstruction of the RLN by the senior author from 2002 to present. Outcome measures included (1) perceptual voice ratings assessed using the GRBAS (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain) scale, (2) psychosocial impact of dysphonia assessed using the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), and (3) assessment of glottic closure from laryngeal videostroboscopy. Results. The RLN was reconstructed with primary anastomosis (4), free nerve graft (3), or vagus-RLN anastomosis (2). Seven patients had voice samples and videostroboscopy examinations obtained at a minimum of 9 months from surgery. Six were judged to have slight disturbance of voice based on overall Grade scoring (G = 1). Five rated their voice as normal or mild on the VHI instrument (score range 8-29). Laryngeal analysis revealed the immobile vocal fold in the median, physiologic phonating position with preserved bulk, recovered tension, and glottic closure during phonation. Three patients less than 9 months from surgery had an expected severe self-reported rating of dysphonia. Conclusion. Primary anastomosis, free nerve grafting, and vagus-RLN anastomosis are viable options for RLN reconstruction. Patients who undergo resection and immediate reconstruction of the RLN are able to regain self-perceived functional voices.

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