Rowe Mark R, D'Antonio Linda L
Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, Loma Linda University and Children's Hospital, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA.
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Dec;13(6):366-70. doi: 10.1097/01.moo.0000186204.53214.62.
Otolaryngologists are increasingly being called upon to assist in the differential diagnosis of velopharyngeal valving disorders for speech, assisting in treatment planning and the assessment of treatment outcomes.
The most commonly used methods for direct visualization of velopharyngeal function remain nasendoscopy and videofluoroscopy. Literature supporting the use of either nasendoscopy followed by videofluoroscopy or the reverse can be found. Several studies also suggest that magnetic resonance imaging can make important contributions to the evaluation of velopharyngeal anatomy and function. The routine use of magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating the velopharynx is neither practical nor probable at the present time. Although magnetic resonance imaging may be as effective as videofluoroscopy or nasendoscopy, the cost of magnetic resonance imaging and the radiation exposure of videofluoroscopy will likely dictate that nasendoscopy continues to be the most common technique for evaluating velopharyngeal function during speech. Several recent studies have documented the use of instrumental assessment of velopharyngeal function for assigning patients to a given surgical procedure, predicting surgical success or complications, and evaluating treatment outcomes.
There are still discussions and conflicting results regarding the best method for evaluating velopharyngeal function. Opinions conflict regarding the various methods, which suggests that no single method is best. The decision regarding the most appropriate evaluation protocol should be guided by the information that the clinician is attempting to obtain and the relative benefits and risks of each method. Increasingly, these evaluation methods are used by the otolaryngologist to assist in the differential diagnosis of velopharyngeal valving disorders, the assignment of patients to various treatment options, and the evaluation of treatment outcomes.
越来越多的耳鼻喉科医生被要求协助对腭咽瓣功能障碍进行言语方面的鉴别诊断,协助制定治疗计划并评估治疗效果。
用于直接观察腭咽功能的最常用方法仍然是鼻内镜检查和视频荧光透视检查。有文献支持先进行鼻内镜检查再进行视频荧光透视检查,或者反之。多项研究还表明,磁共振成像可为腭咽解剖结构和功能的评估做出重要贡献。目前,常规使用磁共振成像来评估腭咽既不实际也不太可能。尽管磁共振成像可能与视频荧光透视检查或鼻内镜检查一样有效,但磁共振成像的成本和视频荧光透视检查的辐射暴露可能会决定鼻内镜检查仍然是评估言语过程中腭咽功能最常用的技术。最近的几项研究记录了使用腭咽功能的仪器评估来为患者分配特定的外科手术、预测手术成功或并发症以及评估治疗效果。
关于评估腭咽功能的最佳方法仍存在讨论和相互矛盾的结果。对于各种方法的观点存在冲突,这表明没有一种方法是最好的。关于最合适评估方案的决定应以临床医生试图获取的信息以及每种方法的相对益处和风险为指导。耳鼻喉科医生越来越多地使用这些评估方法来协助腭咽瓣功能障碍的鉴别诊断、为患者分配各种治疗方案以及评估治疗效果。