4.4 Article

Reinke's edema and risk factors: Clinical and histopathologic aspects

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 81-84

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/ajot.2002.30961

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the distribution of histologic damage and its correlation with various risk factors in a group of patients affected by Reinke's edema. Materials and Methods: The study subjects comprised 125 patients with bilateral Reinke's edema consecutively presenting at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, La Sapienza University, Rome. The patients were divided into 4 groups according to Heliquist, Lundgren, and Olofsson's histologic classification and were then further categorized according to the number of cigarettes they smoked daily. Average exposure to cigarette smoke, occupation, habitual voice use, and gastroesophageal reflux were also considered. Results: Fifty-two patients did not exhibit histologic lesions, 64 patients were histologically classified as Group 1 (epithelial hyperplasia and/or keratosis with or without mild dysplasia), and 6 patients exhibited moderate dysplasia (Group 2). In 3 patients, histologic examination showed evidence of unilateral carcinoma in situ (Group 3). Forty-four patients suffered recurrences within the first 2.5 years. Both daily cigarette consumption and duration of exposure to cigarette smoke were found to influence the severity of the histologic lesion. An association with gastroesophageal reflux was observed in 4 patients (3.2%). Prolonged vocal abuse did not prove to be a noteworthy factor in our study. Conclusions: The main risk factor for Reinke's edema and for its recurrence is tobacco use. Our study results showed that the clinical manifestation of this disease is related to the number of cigarettes smoked daily and the duration of exposure to smoke. Longer durations of exposure to cigarette smoke result in higher degrees of histologic damage.

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

4.4
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