4.7 Article

Analysis of Risk Factors for Phonation Disorders after Thyroid Surgery

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10092280

关键词

thyroid surgery; vocal cord paralysis; complications; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk factors for phonation disorders after thyroidectomy are influenced by various factors, with retrosternal goiter and volume above 100mL being the most important risk factors. Other factors such as having thyroid cancer, being a male over 65 years old with obesity, undergoing secondary operations, and only having visual RLN identification also increase the risk of phonation disorders.
Phonation disorders after thyroidectomy are among the most common complications and occur as a result of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury. The multivariate analysis of risk factors for phonation disorders after thyroidectomy was assessed. A group of 830 patients with 1500 RLNs at risk of injury during thyroidectomy were analyzed retrospectively. The impact of the method of RLN identification, age, sex, BMI, kind of thyroid surgery, pathology, surgeon's experience and thyroid volume on vocal cord paralysis was analyzed. We found that the retrosternal goiter and the volume above 100 mL were the most important risk factors for both transient and permanent paralysis. Thyroid cancer had a statistically significant impact on the increase in permanent paralysis, while this indication had practically no impact on transient paralysis. Among patients over 65 years with obesity, the probability of transient complications approximately doubled, with no effect on the permanent paralysis. Men were approximately 1.7 times more likely to develop any type of phonation disorder. Secondary operations more than doubled the risk of transient and permanent vocal cord paralysis. Thyroidectomy with only visual RLN identification was associated with a risk of both transient and permanent vocal cord paralysis almost two times higher, compared to neuromonitoring.

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

4.7
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