Literature DB >> 17116818

Functional outcome of supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidopexy: radiation failure vs previously untreated cases.

Raul Pellini1, Valentina Manciocco, Giuseppe Spriano.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the postoperative course and functional outcomes achieved in patients treated with supracricoid partial laryngectomy (SPL) with cricohyoidopexy.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis.
SETTING: National Cancer Institute "Regina Elena." PATIENTS: Eighty-two consecutive patients who underwent SPL with cricohyoidopexy between September 1, 1988, and June 30, 2005, were evaluated. The patient cohort was divided into 2 groups: one affected by untreated laryngeal cancer and the other with laryngeal recurrence after radiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The postoperative complications and functional outcomes of both patient groups were evaluated and statistically compared.
RESULTS: No statistical differences were found between the functional results of the 2 groups of patients analyzed.
CONCLUSION: Although a slightly delayed recovery of physiological functions of the larynx could be termed a disadvantage of SCL with cricohyoidopexy after radiotherapy, this operation is a reliable and useful procedure for selected patients with recurrent cancer who would otherwise have been operated on and received a total laryngectomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17116818     DOI: 10.1001/archotol.132.11.1221

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0886-4470


  8 in total

Review 1.  Functional outcomes after supracricoid laryngectomy: what do we not know and what do we need to know?

Authors:  Antonio Schindler; Nicole Pizzorni; Francesco Mozzanica; Marco Fantini; Daniela Ginocchio; Andy Bertolin; Erika Crosetti; Giovanni Succo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Functional analysis of swallowing outcomes after supracricoid partial laryngectomy.

Authors:  Jan S Lewin; Katherine A Hutcheson; Denise A Barringer; Annette H May; Dianna B Roberts; F Christopher Holsinger; Eduardo M Diaz
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.147

3.  Supracricoid partial laryngectomy cricohyoidoepiglottopexy (SCPL-CHEP) versus vertical partial laryngectomy for the treatment of glottic carcinoma.

Authors:  Si-Yi Zhang; Zhong-Ming Lu; Liang-Si Chen; Xiao-Ning Luo; Ping-Jiang Ge; Xin-Han Song; Shao-Hua Chen; Yi-Long Wu
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Analyses of functional and oncologic outcomes following supracricoid partial laryngectomy.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Xiaotian Li; Zimin Pan
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  The senile functional evolution of the larynx after supracricoid reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Agostino Serra; Luigi Maiolino; Paola Di Mauro; Luisa Licciardello; Salvatore Cocuzza
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 6.  Supracricoid laryngectomy for recurrent laryngeal cancer after chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  C A Leone; P Capasso; D Topazio; G Russo
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.124

7.  [Supracricoid partial laryngectomy (SCPL) with either cricohyoidoepiglottopexy (CHEP): our experience with 16 cases].

Authors:  Bouchaib Hemmaoui; Mohamed Sahli; Noureddine Errami; Ahmed Rouihi; Mohamed Habib Bahalou; Ilias Benchaifai; Amine Ennouali; Sara Britel; Ismail Nakkabi; Ali Jahidi; Mohamed Zalagh; Saloua Ouaraini; Fouad Benariba
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2017-07-13

8.  Swallowing and Aspiration: How Much Is Affected by the Number of Arytenoid Cartilages Remaining After Supracricoid Partial Laryngectomy?

Authors:  Caner Kılıç; Ümit Tunçel; Metin Kaya; Ela Cömert; Samet Özlügedik
Journal:  Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 3.372

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.