Cargando…
Injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm
OBJECTIVES: To describe indications for injection augmentation (IA), endoscopic repair (ER) and conservative methods for the management of type 1 laryngeal cleft (LC1) and propose a management algorithm. We also aimed to compare success of IA and ER and determine independent predictors of treatment...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7362509/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32664993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-020-00447-0 |
_version_ | 1783559505509875712 |
---|---|
author | Isaac, Andre Svystun, Orysya Johannsen, Wendy El-Hakim, Hamdy |
author_facet | Isaac, Andre Svystun, Orysya Johannsen, Wendy El-Hakim, Hamdy |
author_sort | Isaac, Andre |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To describe indications for injection augmentation (IA), endoscopic repair (ER) and conservative methods for the management of type 1 laryngeal cleft (LC1) and propose a management algorithm. We also aimed to compare success of IA and ER and determine independent predictors of treatment failure. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients diagnosed with LC1 at a Pediatric Otolaryngology referral centre between 2004 and 2016. All had pre-operative instrumental swallowing evaluation (VFSS/FEES), and were managed with a combination of conservative measures, IA and/or ER. We collected demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, VFSS/FEES results, and operative details. The primary outcome was symptom resolution by parental report. The secondary outcome was predictors of treatment failure. RESULTS: 88 patients were included in the analysis, with mean age 26 ± 25 months. Most presented with choking events (68%) or recurrent pneumonias (48%). In total, there were 55 IA performed and 45 ER. Of the patients who received IA, 19 required subsequent ER. 95% had symptom improvement, 67% had complete resolution. IA had a 56% long-term success rate, whereas that for ER was 85%. Tube feeding at initial evaluation was an independent predictor of treatment failure (HR 11.33 [1.51–84.97], p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: LC1 can be effectively managed with a combination of IA and ER with favorable results. Failure to respond to IA does not preclude ER, and both have their role in management. Patients who are tube fed have a higher probability of treatment failure. We propose a management algorithm that includes reasoning for conservative approaches, and reduces exposure to general anesthesia. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7362509 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73625092020-07-17 Injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm Isaac, Andre Svystun, Orysya Johannsen, Wendy El-Hakim, Hamdy J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Original Research Article OBJECTIVES: To describe indications for injection augmentation (IA), endoscopic repair (ER) and conservative methods for the management of type 1 laryngeal cleft (LC1) and propose a management algorithm. We also aimed to compare success of IA and ER and determine independent predictors of treatment failure. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients diagnosed with LC1 at a Pediatric Otolaryngology referral centre between 2004 and 2016. All had pre-operative instrumental swallowing evaluation (VFSS/FEES), and were managed with a combination of conservative measures, IA and/or ER. We collected demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, VFSS/FEES results, and operative details. The primary outcome was symptom resolution by parental report. The secondary outcome was predictors of treatment failure. RESULTS: 88 patients were included in the analysis, with mean age 26 ± 25 months. Most presented with choking events (68%) or recurrent pneumonias (48%). In total, there were 55 IA performed and 45 ER. Of the patients who received IA, 19 required subsequent ER. 95% had symptom improvement, 67% had complete resolution. IA had a 56% long-term success rate, whereas that for ER was 85%. Tube feeding at initial evaluation was an independent predictor of treatment failure (HR 11.33 [1.51–84.97], p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: LC1 can be effectively managed with a combination of IA and ER with favorable results. Failure to respond to IA does not preclude ER, and both have their role in management. Patients who are tube fed have a higher probability of treatment failure. We propose a management algorithm that includes reasoning for conservative approaches, and reduces exposure to general anesthesia. BioMed Central 2020-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7362509/ /pubmed/32664993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-020-00447-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Isaac, Andre Svystun, Orysya Johannsen, Wendy El-Hakim, Hamdy Injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm |
title | Injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm |
title_full | Injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm |
title_fullStr | Injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm |
title_full_unstemmed | Injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm |
title_short | Injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm |
title_sort | injection augmentation and endoscopic repair of type 1 laryngeal clefts: development of a management algorithm |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7362509/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32664993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-020-00447-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT isaacandre injectionaugmentationandendoscopicrepairoftype1laryngealcleftsdevelopmentofamanagementalgorithm AT svystunorysya injectionaugmentationandendoscopicrepairoftype1laryngealcleftsdevelopmentofamanagementalgorithm AT johannsenwendy injectionaugmentationandendoscopicrepairoftype1laryngealcleftsdevelopmentofamanagementalgorithm AT elhakimhamdy injectionaugmentationandendoscopicrepairoftype1laryngealcleftsdevelopmentofamanagementalgorithm |