ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2021
Voice assessment of fat injection vs medialization laryngoplasty in nonparalytic dysphonia.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Voice assessment of fat injection vs medialization laryngoplasty in nonparalytic dysphonia.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCompare long-term voice outcomes in patients treated with FIM or BML for nonparalytic dysphonia. There is controversy whether fat injection medialization (FIM) is a durable alternative to bilateral medialization laryngoplasty (BML) for nonparalytic dysphonia (atrophy, sulcus, scar, paresis). Both interventions yield improved voice quality, yet comparison of patients' long-term perceptions of their voice after these procedures has not been performed.
methodsRetrospective review of patients who underwent FIM or BML for nonparalytic dysphonia was performed from 2008-2018. Charts were reviewed for demographic information, preoperative diagnosis, intervention, Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), and follow-up time.
resultsForty-nine patients met our criteria. Fifty procedures were performed (25 FIM, 25 BML). One patient underwent BML with subsequent FIM. There was no significant difference in pre-treatment or post-treatment VHI-10 scores between both groups (Pre-FIM 21 Post-FIM 10.28; Pre-BML 22.48, Post-BML 10.88). Total median follow-up time was 11.3 months (FIM 14.8 months, BML 9.5 months). Using VHI-10 scores recorded at each patient's latest follow-up visit, both groups demonstrated significant decrease (
conclusionsIn patients with nonparalytic dysphonia, FIM is a durable alternative to BML. Patients treated in both groups gained substantial improvement in vocal function. For both treatment groups, we should anticipate less than complete satisfaction with surgery and revision procedures in a minority of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.