| Title |
The development and treatment of periprosthetic leakage after prosthetic voice restoration: a literature review and personal experience. Part II: conservative and surgical management
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-014-3393-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kai J. Lorenz |
| Abstract |
In the past 30 years, the use of voice prostheses has become the gold standard for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. The placement of a voice prosthesis is a simple procedure that is associated with only a minor increase in operating time and a low rate of complications. Most problems with voice prostheses are minor and can be easily managed. Enlargement of the tracheo-oesophageal fistula, however, can be a severe complication. Approximately 25 % of all patients with voice prostheses develop periprosthetic leakage with aspiration within 1-4 years after the placement of a voice prosthesis. Depending on the severity of fistula enlargement, treatment ranges from conservative approaches to maximally invasive procedures. In some cases, however, these measures prove unsuccessful. The causes of treatment failure and fistula enlargement are not yet fully understood. Apart from a discussion of treatment options, an algorithm for the management of this complication is presented on the basis of the literature and the experience that we have accumulated at our institution during the past 20 years in the treatment of 232 laryngectomised patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,243,777
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#2,019
of 3,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,341
of 362,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#41
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,061 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.