Search

Background: We compared the outcome of postoperative unilateral cervical nodes radiotherapy (UL‐RT) vs bilateral cervical nodes plus total mucosal irradiation (COMP‐RT) in the management of head and neck carcinoma of unknown primary (HNCUP). Methods: HNCUP, defined by the absence of primary despite a PET‐CT combined with a panendoscopy, were treated with curative intent by initial ipsilateral neck dissection. Sixty‐nine patients with unilateral HNCUP were included: 23 received UL‐RT while 46 received COMP‐RT. Carcinologic outcomes and long‐term quality of life (QOL) according to the QOL Questionnaire for Head and Neck 35 were assessed. Results: Within 6.3 years of median follow‐up, there was no significant difference in primary tumor emergence rate (P =.68), cervical node recurrence rate (P =.34), or overall survival (P =.33) between UL‐RT and COMP‐RT groups. A trend toward QOL improvement was observed in the UL‐RT group. Conclusion: UL‐RT seems to provide similar outcomes as COMP‐RT in unilateral HNCUP management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusion: Patients implanted with the Digisonic® SP device showed better identification scores than those implanted with the Convex device, with skills continuing to improve over a longer time period. Technological improvements were beneficial in terms of speech perception in quiet. Objective: To compare speech perception skills for post-lingually deaf patients implanted with a previous Neurelec device, the Digisonic® Convex, with those implanted with a more recent one, the Digisonic® SP, which provides more electrodes and a faster stimulation rate. Methods: This was a retrospective study of 100 implanted patients, 45 with the Digisonic® Convex implant and 55 with the Digisonic® SP. Speech perception (dissyllabic words and sentences, in open set) was evaluated until 1 year after implantation. Results: Patients fitted with the Digisonic® SP implant showed significantly better scores after 3, 6, and 12 months (mean scores: 53%, 62%, and 68% for words; 58%, 69%, and 75% for sentences) than those fitted with the Convex implant (34%, 42%, and 43% for words; 38%, 59%, and 51% for sentences). The improvement in speech perception after implantation for SP patients continued throughout the 12 months for words and 6 months for sentences, versus 6 months for words and 3 months for sentences for Convex patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusion: Patients implanted with the Digisonic® SP device showed better identification scores than those implanted with the Convex device, with skills continuing to improve over a longer time period. Technological improvements were beneficial in terms of speech perception in quiet., Objective: To compare speech perception skills for post-lingually deaf patients implanted with a previous Neurelec device, the Digisonic® Convex, with those implanted with a more recent one, the Digisonic® SP, which provides more electrodes and a faster stimulation rate., Methods: This was a retrospective study of 100 implanted patients, 45 with the Digisonic® Convex implant and 55 with the Digisonic® SP. Speech perception (dissyllabic words and sentences, in open set) was evaluated until 1 year after implantation., Results: Patients fitted with the Digisonic® SP implant showed significantly better scores after 3, 6, and 12 months (mean scores: 53%, 62%, and 68% for words; 58%, 69%, and 75% for sentences) than those fitted with the Convex implant (34%, 42%, and 43% for words; 38%, 59%, and 51% for sentences). The improvement in speech perception after implantation for SP patients continued throughout the 12 months for words and 6 months for sentences, versus 6 months for words and 3 months for sentences for Convex patients.