Effect of nasal speaking valve on speech intelligibility under velopharyngeal incompetence: a questionnaire survey

Velopharyngeal incompetence is known as a contributing factor to speech disorders. Suwaki et al. reported that nasal speaking valve (NSV) could improve dysarthria by regulating nasal emission utilising one‐way valve. However, disease or condition which would be susceptible to treatment by NSV has not been clarified yet. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of NSV by questionnaire survey using ready‐made NSV. Subjects were recruited through the internet bulletin, and NSV survey set was sent to the applicant. Sixty‐six participants, who agreed to participate in this study, used NSV and mailed back the questionnaire which included self‐evaluation and third‐party evaluation of speech intelligibility. Statistical analysis revealed that the use of NSV resulted in significant speech intelligibility improvement in both self‐evaluation and third‐party evaluation (P < 0·01). Regarding the type of underlying disease of dysarthria, significant effect of NSV on self‐evaluation of speech intelligibility could be observed in cerebrovascular disease and neurodegenerative disease (P < 0·01) and that on third‐party evaluation in neurodegenerative disease (P < 0·01). Eighty‐six percent of subjects showed improvement of speech intelligibility by shutting up nostrils by fingers, and the significant effect of NSV on both self‐evaluation and third‐party evaluation of speech intelligibility was observed (P < 0·001). From the results of this study, it was suggested that NSV would be effective in cerebrovascular disease and neurodegenerative disease, as well as in subjects whose speech intelligibility was improved by closing nostrils.     

Current Use of Fractional Flow Reserve: A Nationwide Survey

Major medical society guidelines recommend the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) as an aid in choosing percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease. We investigated the measurement of FFR among interventionalists, analyzing operators'' attributes and decision-making processes to reveal differences in their applications of FFR and the reasons for those differences. An electronic survey study of 1,089 interventionalists was performed from 2 February through 6 March 2012, yielding 255 responses. Most respondents were >45 years old (58%), worked primarily in a community hospital (59%), and performed 10 to 30 cases per month (52%). More than half (145/253, 57%) used FFR measurement in less than one third of cases, and 39 of 253 (15%) never used it. There were no differences in use of FFR by age, practice location, or angiogram volume (P >0.05 for all). Respondents used FFR measurement more frequently than intravascular ultrasonography (73% vs 60%) to help guide the decision to stent (P <0.01). Operators reported that their primary reasons for not using FFR were lack of availability (47%) and problems with reimbursement (39%). There was no difference in FFR use by operator age, practice setting, or case volume.     

Neuropsychological evaluation and parental assessment of behavioral and motor difficulties in children with neurofibromatosis type 1

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant multisystem disorder, with large inter and intrafamilial clinical variability and uncertain prognosis. In children with NF1 cognitive disorders, learning difficulties and behavioral problems are common.The present study aims to establish the neuropsychological and behavioral profiles of 78 patients with NF1, aged between 5 and 18 years, and to examine the relationship between these profiles and the transmission of NF1 (sporadic vs. familial), clinical manifestations, and environmental factors.We used several questionnaires completed by parents and neuropsychological tests.The results confirmed specific neuropsychological disabilities in children with NF1, especially involving visuospatial and fine motor skills, learning difficulties and behavioral problems. Cognitive difficulties were significantly more frequent in patients with familial than in those with sporadic NF1. All parental questionnaires were correlated with each other, but parental reports were not associated with FSIQ, SES, school status, and clinical manifestations of the disease.Neuropsychological tests were poorly related to parental reports of cognitive and behavioral difficulties.     

The impact of gross anatomy laboratory on first year medical students’ interest in a surgical career

This study sought to determine the impact of gross anatomy laboratory (GA) on first year medical students’ (M1) interest in a surgical career. Secondary objectives included identifying other influences in M1s’ career decision making. This prospective study included surveys before and after GA. All M1s enrolled in GA were invited to participate. Sixty students completed both the pre‐ and post‐test surveys. A 5‐point Likert‐type scale surveyed participants’ interests, specific personality traits, experience during the course of GA, and likelihood of pursuing a surgical career. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and (Polychotomous) Ordinal Logistic Regression Model. Students’ desire to work with their hands increased (50 vs. 33.3%) and enjoyment working with instruments and tools similarly increased (50 vs. 41.7%). Likelihood of pursuing a surgical career after gross anatomy increased in 31.7% of students, decreased in 16.7%, and was unchanged in 51.7%. Over 75% of students with a prior interest in surgery and 21% of those who previously felt neutral agreed that they were likely to pursue a career in surgery at the conclusion of the laboratory. Students with a surgeon family member were 0.1976 times as likely to exhibit a positive change in interest (P values 0.024). Gross anatomy may influence up to a third of the class to consider a surgical career, especially those with a prior interest in surgery and those previously feeling ambivalent. Students with a surgeon family member became less likely to enter a surgical career after gross anatomy. Clin. Anat. 29:691–695, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.