Repercussão da reabilitação da comunicação oral na qualidade de vida e desvantagem vocal em laringectomizados totais

• Autor(a) principal: Zagari, Priscila Rodrigues Prado Prado
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
• Texto Completo: https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/11953
• topic: Qualidade de vida; Voz alaríngea; Câncer; Laringectomia; Reabilitação; Quality of life; Alaryngeal voice; Cancer; Laryngectomy rehabilitation; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::FONOAUDIOLOGIA

Introduction: changes in vocal quality can bring impact on quality of life of an individual undergoing the treatment of advanced larynx cancer. Objective: Analyze the impact of rehabilitation methods of oral communication in laryngectomized, regarding the impact of voice on the quality of life and vocal handicap. Methods: cross-sectional study-exploratory carried out in patients with malignant neoplasms of the larynx, in advanced stages III and IV, and submitted to the major surgeries in the period of six months, after surgical treatment. The selection was performed between the months of May and September 2011, and the final 40 male subjects, which comprised the sample, answered two protocols: Quality of Life in Voice (V-RQOL) and Voice Handicap Index (VHI). The descriptive statistical analysis revealed the absolute and relative frequencies of socio-demographic aspects, and to check adherence to the normal curve of the indices was used the test Kolmogov-Smirnov, for the difference in rates between the different groups of rehabilitation (tracheoesophageal prostheses, electronic larynx and esophageal voice), the Kruskal-Wallis test and for the difference between these groups, post hoc Dum test. For all analyzes was assumed a descriptive level of 5% (p<0.05) for statistical significance. Results: recorded total values higher in answers to the QVV (82.9) and lower in IDV (24.8) of the patients rehabilitated with tracheoesophageal prostheses when compared to those who make use of electronic larynx (V-RQOL= 73.6 and IDV = 32.1) or esophageal voice (V-RQOL= 55.4 and IDV = 46.4). In the comparison between the groups for the indices of the QVV total score and the Socioemotional Domain registered a significant difference (p=0.027 and p=0.006) as well as the total score and the functional of the IDV (respectively, p=0.049 and p=0.012). Conclusion: the rehabilitation of laryngectomees totals with tracheoesophageal prostheses, according to the patients themselves had more positively on the quality of life with smaller vocal disadvantage, when compared to rehabilitation with electronic larynx and finally with esophageal voice