BACKGROUND: Several functional advantages have been described for the transoral laser supraglottic laryngectomy as compared with open techniques. However, comparative studies have been rarely performed. METHODS: Functional results in 26 patients treated with a transoral approach were retrospectively compared with those of a comparable series of 26 patients who underwent a transcervical approach. RESULTS: The only significant differences found between the two groups were a lesser number of temporary tracheotomies and a shorter time of removal of the nasogastric tube in the laser group. No significant differences were found in the incidence of postoperative complications, hospital stay, and swallowing capacity. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of functional problems after transoral laser surgery did not greatly decrease compared with the rate after the conventional procedure. The mayor advantage of the transoral approach was the lower incidence of temporary tracheotomies. Copyright 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Several functional advantages have been described for the transoral laser supraglottic laryngectomy as compared with open techniques. However, comparative studies have been rarely performed. METHODS: Functional results in 26 patients treated with a transoral approach were retrospectively compared with those of a comparable series of 26 patients who underwent a transcervical approach. RESULTS: The only significant differences found between the two groups were a lesser number of temporary tracheotomies and a shorter time of removal of the nasogastric tube in the laser group. No significant differences were found in the incidence of postoperative complications, hospital stay, and swallowing capacity. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of functional problems after transoral laser surgery did not greatly decrease compared with the rate after the conventional procedure. The mayor advantage of the transoral approach was the lower incidence of temporary tracheotomies. Copyright 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Maria Agustina Sevilla; Juan Pablo Rodrigo; José Luis Llorente; Rubén Cabanillas; Fernando López; Carlos Suárez Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Marc Remacle; Anastasios Hantzakos; Hans Eckel; Anne-Sophie Evrard; Patrick J Bradley; Dominique Chevalier; Vojko Djukic; Marco de Vincentiis; Gerhard Friedrich; Jan Olofsson; Giorgio Peretti; Miquel Quer; Jochen Werner Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Soon-Hyun Ahn; Hyun Jun Hong; Soon Young Kwon; Kee Hwan Kwon; Jong-Lyel Roh; Junsun Ryu; Jun Hee Park; Seung-Kuk Baek; Guk Haeng Lee; Sei Young Lee; Jin Choon Lee; Man Ki Chung; Young Hoon Joo; Yong Bae Ji; Jeong Hun Hah; Minsu Kwon; Young Min Park; Chang Myeon Song; Sung-Chan Shin; Chang Hwan Ryu; Doh Young Lee; Young Chan Lee; Jae Won Chang; Ha Min Jeong; Jae-Keun Cho; Wonjae Cha; Byung Joon Chun; Ik Joon Choi; Hyo Geun Choi; Kang Dae Lee Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Rocío González-Márquez; Juan P Rodrigo; Jose Luis Llorente; Cesar Alvarez-Marcos; Juan P Díaz; Carlos Suárez Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-04-07 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: C M Chiesa Estomba; F A Betances Reinoso; A I Lorenzo Lorenzo; J L Fariña Conde; J Araujo Nores; C Santidrian Hidalgo Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.124