Efficacy of speech aid prostheses for acquired defects of the soft palate and velopharyngeal inadequacyâclinical assessments and cephalometric analysis: A Memorial Sloan-Kettering Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Restoration of speech after surgical resection for oropharyngeal cancer traditionally includes maxillofacial prosthetic intervention. Relatively few publications with objective speech outcomes exist. The purpose of this study was to evaluate speech outcome relative to the size of the surgical defect, the type of speech prosthesis, and the height and position of the speech bulb in relation to the posterior pharyngeal wall in the nasopharynx. METHODS: Fifty-five patients treated at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Dental Service who underwent ablative cancer therapy were evaluated. All patients were 4 months or longer after surgery and were using a speech aid or obturator prosthesis at the time of the study. Speech samples for percent intelligibility and perceptual evaluation were collected and analyzed, in addition to aeromechanical measurements of palatopharyngeal function. Lateral cephalograms were taken while wearing the prosthesis using a radiopaque marker placed on the posterior aspect of the prosthesis for evaluating the height and position of the prosthesis obturator-speech bulb component. RESULTS: After adjustment for the differences between listeners, findings revealed that as the percentage of resection of palate or tongue increased, the intelligibility of speech decreased. Aeromechanical assessment of speech was the only outcome measure sensitive to the type of speech prosthesis. The position of the speech bulb component, as well as the angle measured, was correlated with the percent intelligibility. The amount of the prosthesis physically contacting the posterior pharyngeal wall was not significantly associated with any of the functional outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Speech aid and obturator prostheses contribute to a higher percentage of intelligible speech. A difference in intelligibility exists in relationship to the position of the prosthesis and the anterior tubercle of the atlas vertebrae (C1), both statistically and clinically. The position for optimal speech could not be specifically located mathematically (ie, 3 mm or 3 degrees inferior to the anterior tubercle of the atlas vertebrae) from the analysis. Subjective ratings of the efficacy of the obturator-speech bulbs by the clinicians did not correspond to the percent intelligibility. A strong statistical and clinical correlation exists supporting the efficacy of speech bulb-obturator intervention after velopharyngeal insufficiency for improved intelligibility of both words and sentences.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle