Comparative videostroboscopic analysis after different external partial laryngectomies
Abstract
Background/Aim. After external partial laryngectomias, videostroborscopy is very usefull in evaluation of postoperative phonatory mehanisms showing the “slow motion” of the vibrations of the remaining laryngeal structures. The aim of this paper was to compare the videostroboscopic characteristics of the vibration and to establish the differences in the phonation mechanisms depending on the type of external partial laryngectomy performed. Methods. This prospective study was conducted during the period 2003–2009 at the Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic, Clinical Center of Vojvodina, Novi Sad, including 99 patients with laryngeal carcinoma, treated with open surgical approach using different types of vertical and horizontal partial laryngectomy. Videostroboscopy was used to analyse vibrations of the remaining laryngeal structures. Results. The dominant vibration structure after partial horizontal laryngectomy, chordectomy, frontolateral laryngectomy and three quarter laryngectomy was the remaining vocal fold, after hemilaryngectomy it was the false vocal fold and after subtotal and near total laryngectomy it was the arythenoid. In patients with supracricoid hemilaryngopharyngectomy performed, many different structures were involved in the vibration. After most of the partial laryngectomies, vibrations can be found in the reconstructed part of the defect. In both horizontal and vertical partial laryngectomies movements of the larynx during phonation were mostly medial, while in cricohyoidoglottopexies they were anterior-posterior. Most of the operated patients (72.7%) had insufficient occlusion of the neoglottis during the phonation. Conclusion. Videostroboscopy is a useful method in examining the phonation mechanisms of reconstructed laryngeal structures after partial laryngectomy as well as in planning postoperative voice therapy.
References
Davies L, Welch HG. Epidemiology of head and neck cancer in the United States. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006; 135(3): 451−7.
Sparano A, Ruiz C, Weinstein GS. Voice rehabilitation after ex-ternal partial laryngeal surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2004; 37(3): 637−53.
Makief M, de la Breteque A, Guerrier B, Giovanni A. Voice handi-cap evaluation after supracricoid partial laryngec-tomy.Laryngoscope 2009; 119(4): 746−50.
Mumović MG. Dysphonia treatment after partial laryngectomy by larynx compression [dissertation]. Novi Sad: Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad; 2008. (Serbian)
Mumović MG. Vocal therapy with larynx compression after par-tial laryngectomy. Med Pregl 2011; 64(6−7): 357−61.
Weinstein GS, Laccourreye O, Brasnu D, Laccourreye H. Organ preservation surgery for laryngeal cancer. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1999.
Weinstein GS, O’Malley WB, Snyder W, Hockstein GN. Transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic partial laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2007; 116(1): 19−23.
Montgomery WW. Surgery of the larynx, trachea, oesophagus and neck. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2002.
Pearson BW, De Santo LW, Olsen KD, Salassa JR. Results of near-total laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1998; 107 (10 Pt 1): 820−5.
Laccourreye O, Ishoo E, de Mones E, Garcia D, Kania R, Hans S. Supracricoid hemilaryngopharyngectomy in patients with inva-sive squamous cell carcinoma of the pyriform sinus. Part I: Technique, complications, and long-term functional outcome. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2005; 114(1 Pt 1): 25−34.
Večerina S. Laryngeal function after partial laryngectomy [dis-sertation]. Zagreb: Faculty of Medicine, University of Zagreb; 1976. (Croatian)
Kendall AK, Browning MM, Skovlund MS. Introduction to high speed imaging of the larynx. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 13(3): 135−7.
Makieff M, Giovanni A, Guerrier B. Laryngostroboscopic evalua-tion after supracricoid partial laryngectomy. J Voice 2007; 21(4): 508−15.
Luna-Ortiz K, Núñz-Valencia ER, Tamez-Velarde M, Granados-Garcia M. Quality of life and functional evaluation after su-pracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy in Mexican patients. J Laryngol Otol 2004; 118(4): 284−8.
Schneider B, Bigenzahn W. Influence of glottal closure configura-tion on vocal efficacy in young normal-speaking women. J Voice 2003; 17(4): 468−80.
Hirano M, Kurita S, Matsuoka H. Vocal function following hemilaryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1987; 96(5): 586−9.
Mandell LD, Woo P, Behin SD, Mojica J, Minasian A, Urken LM, et al. Videolaryngostroboscopy following vertical partial laryn-gectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999; 108(11): 1061−7.
Szmeja Z, Leszczynska M. Voice function in patients after ex-tended fronto-lateral laryngectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn-gol 1999; 256(8): 418−22.
Biacabe B, Crevier-Buchman L, Hans S, Laccourreye O, Brasnu D. Phonatory mechanisms after vertical partial laryngectomy with glottic reconstruction by false vocal fold flap. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001; 110(10): 935−40.
Marioni G, Marchese-Ragona R, Ottaviano G, Staffieri A. Supracri-coid laryngectomy: is it time to define guadelines to evaluate functional results? A review. Am J Otolaryngol 2004; 25(2): 98−104.
Hanamitsu M, Kataoka H, Takeuchi E, Kitajima K. Comparative study of vocal function after near-total laryngectomy. Laryngo-scope 1999; 109(8): 1320−3
