Comparison of voice outcome after vocal fold augmentation with fat or XXXX hydroxylapatite.

@entity1 @entity3746 @entity460 @entity1032
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the short-term voice outcomes of vocal fold augmentation using fat compared to calcium hydroxylapatite product Radiesse Voice (Merz Aesthetics). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study design. METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive @entity1 with @entity3746 were recruited, including the final 33 @entity1 treated with fat and all 33 @entity1 treated with calcium hydroxylapatite product. Before April 2011, fat augmentation was the standard treatment; from April 2011, only @entity460 hydroxylapatite product was used. For all subjects, videolaryngostroboscopic evaluation, s/z ratios, and @entity1032 index (VHI) were analyzed. METHODS: Treatment outcomes were evaluated 3 months after the augmentation. Two @entity1 augmented with fat (both after 6 months), versus four augmented with @entity460 hydroxylapatite product (mean after 7 months), needed reintervention. Mean VHI decreased from 18 points in the fat augmentation group compared to 17 points in the @entity460 hydroxylapatite group. Mean s/z ratio changed -0.33 in the fat augmentation group compared to -0.46 in the @entity460 hydroxylapatite group. CONCLUSION: This retrospective cohort demonstrates that there are no short-term differences in VHI outcome or number of reinterventions for augmentation with fat compared to calcium hydroxylapatite product Radiesse Voice (Merz Aesthetics). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. Laryngoscope, 2014.
