4.5 Review

The Current Status of Human Laryngeal Transplantation in 2017: A State of the Field Review

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 127, 期 8, 页码 1861-1868

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.26503

关键词

Larynx; transplantation; transplant recipients

资金

  1. Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS) [AMS-SGCL13-Fishman] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/K026453/1, G1001539, G1100397] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0513-10089] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G1001539, MR/K026453/1, G1100397] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Human laryngeal allotransplantation has long been contemplated as a surgical option following laryngectomy, but there is a paucity of information regarding the indications, surgical procedure, and patient outcomes. Our objectives were to identify all human laryngeal allotransplants that have been undertaken and reported in the English literature and to evaluate the success of the procedure. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Current Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Scopus, and the Gray literature. Review Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was undertaken across multiple databases. Inclusion criteria were case reports of patients who had undergone human laryngeal allotransplantation. Information regarding indications, operative techniques, complications, graft viability, and functional outcomes were extracted. Results: A total of 5,961 articles, following removal of duplicates, matched the search criteria and were screened, with five case reports relating to two patients, ultimately fulfilling the entry criteria. Conclusions: Two laryngeal transplants have been reported in the medical literature. Although both patients report improved quality of life relating to their ability to communicate with voice, further research is necessary to shape our understanding of this complicated operation, its indications, and its functional outcomes.

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