Bertoni Dylan, Siddiqui Sana, Han Chihun, Tibbetts Kathleen M, Spiegel Joseph
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Laryngoscope. 2025 Jan;135(1):183-190. doi: 10.1002/lary.31693. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Head and neck radiation therapy (HNRT) has traditionally been considered a contraindication to vocal fold medialization procedures. Although safety has been demonstrated, we hypothesize that actual management varies. This study evaluates practice patterns of otolaryngologists regarding vocal fold medialization in patients after HNRT.
A 25-question survey evaluating respondents' management of patients status post HNRT with vocal fold paresis/paralysis was distributed to 357 otolaryngologists. Practice patterns regarding injection laryngoplasty (IL), medialization thyroplasty (MT), and arytenoid adduction (AA) were queried.
Eight-two clinicians (23%) completed the survey. Ninety-one percent of respondents were laryngologists, 9% head and neck surgeons, 3% comprehensive otolaryngologists, and 3% "other." Eleven (15%) had been in practice <5 years, 19 (25%) for 5-10 years, and 46 (61%) for >10 years. No respondents considered HNRT a contraindication to IL, and 11 (14%) reported complications from the procedure. Hyaluronic acid (58, 75%) was most commonly injected. Twenty percent considered HNRT a contraindication to MT, and 37% considered it a contraindication to AA. Gore-Tex was used most commonly (65%). Twenty-seven percent reported major complications after MT. All complications occurred in the >10-year practice group, and this group was more likely to delay surgery after HNRT (p = 0.022). Respondents with complications were more likely to perform MT in HNRT patients (p = 0.0191).
Otolaryngologists generally do not consider HNRT to be a contraindication to IL, but some consider it a contraindication to MT/AA. Previous complications do not appear to deter surgeons from performing MT.
NA (Survey Study) Laryngoscope, 135:183-190, 2025.
背景/目的:传统上,头颈部放射治疗(HNRT)被视为声带内移手术的禁忌证。尽管已证明其安全性,但我们推测实际的治疗方式存在差异。本研究评估了耳鼻喉科医生对HNRT术后患者声带内移的治疗模式。
向357名耳鼻喉科医生发放了一份包含25个问题的调查问卷,评估受访者对HNRT术后声带麻痹/瘫痪患者的治疗情况。询问了关于注射喉成形术(IL)、内移甲状软骨成形术(MT)和杓状软骨内收术(AA)的治疗模式。
82名临床医生(23%)完成了调查。91%的受访者为喉科医生,9%为头颈外科医生,3%为综合耳鼻喉科医生,3%为“其他”。11人(15%)从业时间不足5年,19人(25%)为5至10年,46人(61%)超过10年。没有受访者认为HNRT是IL的禁忌证,11人(14%)报告了该手术的并发症。透明质酸(58人;75%)是最常注射的物质。20%的人认为HNRT是MT的禁忌证;37%的人认为是AA的禁忌证。最常使用的是Gore-Tex(65%)。27%的人报告了MT术后的严重并发症。所有并发症均发生在从业超过10年的组中,且该组更有可能在HNRT后延迟手术(p = 0.022)。发生并发症后的受访者更有可能对HNRT患者进行MT(p = 0.0191)。
耳鼻喉科医生一般不认为HNRT是IL的禁忌证,但有些人认为是MT/AA的禁忌证。既往并发症似乎并未阻止外科医生进行MT。
NA(调查研究)《喉镜》,135:183 - 190,2025年。