Kate Clancy1, Jeanie Sozansky Lujan2, Thomas Xia3, Chad Zender2, Nicole Maronian2. 1. University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, United States of America. Electronic address: kate.clancy@uhhospitals.org. 2. University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, United States of America. 3. Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has demonstrated the safety of tracheoesophageal puncture voice prosthesis (TEP) placement in radiated patients; however, there is a growing population of twice-radiated patients with limited research on the outcomes of TEP-placement in this cohort. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective review of 80 patients that underwent TEP from 2006 to 2017 at a single institution was conducted, of which 16 patients underwent two courses of radiation. Outcome measures include TEP removal, complication and duration of usage. RESULTS: Half of twice-radiated patients had ultimate removal of their voice prosthesis with removal occurring at a median of 24.9 months after placement. Reasons for prosthesis removal included widening tracheoesophageal fistula, local recurrence, and dysphagia/esophageal stenosis. Nearly one-third of these patients required surgical intervention for closure of a widening fistula. In contrast, only 17% of once-radiated patients had their prosthesis removed with removal occurring at a median of 28.1 months. This was statistically fewer than the twice-radiated group (p = 0.02). Reasons for removal included patient preference, persistent leakage, recurrence of disease, enlarging tracheoesophageal fistula, poor voice, and dysphagia. Eleven percent of once-radiated patients required surgical intervention for TEP-related complications (p = 0.057). CONCLUSION: In the twice-radiated patient cohort, there is a higher rate of TEP removal and need for surgical intervention for a voice prosthesis-related complication as compared to a once-radiated cohort.
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has demonstrated the safety of tracheoesophageal puncture voice prosthesis (TEP) placement in radiated patients; however, there is a growing population of twice-radiated patients with limited research on the outcomes of TEP-placement in this cohort. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective review of 80 patients that underwent TEP from 2006 to 2017 at a single institution was conducted, of which 16 patients underwent two courses of radiation. Outcome measures include TEP removal, complication and duration of usage. RESULTS: Half of twice-radiated patients had ultimate removal of their voice prosthesis with removal occurring at a median of 24.9 months after placement. Reasons for prosthesis removal included widening tracheoesophageal fistula, local recurrence, and dysphagia/esophageal stenosis. Nearly one-third of these patients required surgical intervention for closure of a widening fistula. In contrast, only 17% of once-radiated patients had their prosthesis removed with removal occurring at a median of 28.1 months. This was statistically fewer than the twice-radiated group (p = 0.02). Reasons for removal included patient preference, persistent leakage, recurrence of disease, enlarging tracheoesophageal fistula, poor voice, and dysphagia. Eleven percent of once-radiated patients required surgical intervention for TEP-related complications (p = 0.057). CONCLUSION: In the twice-radiated patient cohort, there is a higher rate of TEP removal and need for surgical intervention for a voice prosthesis-related complication as compared to a once-radiated cohort.