These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of long-term voice outcomes after vocal fold augmentation using autologous fat injection by direct microlaryngoscopy versus office-based calcium hydroxylapatite injection.
    Author: Zeleník K, Walderová R, Kučová H, Jančatová D, Komínek P.
    Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2017 Aug; 274(8):3147-3151. PubMed ID: 28478500.
    Abstract:
    The objective is to compare the long-term voice outcomes of vocal fold augmentation (VFA) using autologous fat injection via direct microlaryngoscopy versus office-based calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) injection. Patients with glottal insufficiency and a gap no greater than 3 mm caused by unilateral vocal fold paralysis or vocal fold atrophy were prospectively recruited to the study from September 2012 to September 2015. From September 2012 to May 2014, VFA was only performed using autologous fat via direct microlaryngoscopy under general anesthesia (N = 14). From May 2014 to September 2015, VFA was performed as an office-based procedure using a transoral approach to inject CaHA (N = 17). Videolaryngostroboscopic evaluation, subjective satisfaction with voice, voice handicap index (VHI), and maximal phonation time (MPT) were analyzed pre-injection and 12 months after VFA. A total of 31 patients were analyzed. One year after VFA, 67.8% of the patients were satisfied with their voice, with no significant difference between groups (P = 0.247). The mean improvement in VHI in the autologous fat group was 31.6 ± 16.82 versus 35 ± 27.24 in the CaHA group (P = 0.664). MPT improvement was also similar in the two groups: 5.5 ± 2.52 for the autologous fat group versus 6.0 ± 3.98 for the CaHA group (P = 0.823). Both autologous fat injection via direct microlaryngoscopy and office-based CaHA injection have good long-term results. There were no differences in the treatment results of the two procedures 1 year after injection.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]