4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Vocal fold immobility: A longitudinal analysis of etiology over 20 years

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 117, 期 10, 页码 1864-1870

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e3180de4d49

关键词

vocal fold paresis; vocal fold paralysis; hoarseness; unilateral; bilateral

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine the current etiology of vocal fold immobility, identify changing trends over the last 20 years, and compare results to historical reports. Study Design: The present study is a retrospective analysis of all patients seen within a tertiary care institution between 1996 and 2005 with vocal fold immobility. The results were combined with a previous study of patients within the same institution from 1985 through 1995. Results were compared to the literature. Methods: The medical records of all patients assigned a primary or additional diagnostic code for vocal cord paralysis were obtained from the electronic database. Results: Eight hundred twenty-seven patients were available for analysis (435 from the most recent cohort), which is substantially larger than any reported series to date. Vocal fold immobility was most commonly associated with a surgical procedure (37%). Nonthyroid surgeries (66%), such as anterior cervical approaches to the spine and carotid endarterectomies, have surpassed thyroid surgery (33%) as the most common iatrogenic causes. These data represent a change from historical figures in which extralaryngeal malignancies were considered the major cause of unilateral immobility. Thyroidectomy continues to cause the majority (80%) of iatrogenic bilateral vocal fold immobility and 30% of all bilateral immobility. Conclusions: This 20-year longitudinal assessment revealed that the etiology of unilateral vocal fold immobility has changed such that there has been a shift from extralaryngeal malignancies to nonthyroid surgical procedures as the major cause. Thyroid surgery remains the most common cause of bilateral vocal fold immobility.

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