IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i13p8050-d852943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Swallowing Outcomes in Open Partial Horizontal Laryngectomy Type I and Endoscopic Supraglottic Laryngectomy: A Comparative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Carmelo Saraniti

    (Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostic, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy)

  • Francesco Ciodaro

    (Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy)

  • Cosimo Galletti

    (Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Adult and Development Age Human Pathology “Gaetano Barresi”, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy)

  • Salvatore Gallina

    (Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostic, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy)

  • Barbara Verro

    (Division of Otorhinolaryngology, Department of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostic, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy)

Abstract

Background: Effective swallowing represents the main challenge in supraglottic laryngectomy. This study aimed to assess swallowing outcome comparing endoscopic supraglottic laryngectomy (ESL) and open partial horizontal laryngectomy type I (OPHL I). Methods: A retrospective study was carried out on 20 patients that underwent supraglottic laryngectomy from 2015 to 2021: 10 underwent ESL (group A) and 10 underwent OPHL I (Group B). Patients underwent fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) 3 months and 12 months after surgery and videofluoroscopy swallowing studies (VFSS) 12 months after surgery. A Swallowing Outcome After Laryngectomy (SOAL) questionnaire was administered to patients to assess their life quality. Results: A naso-gastric tube was placed in two patients of Group A and in all patients of Group B. Tracheostomy was performed in two patients of Group A and in all patients in Group B and it has been closed in 100% of them. According to Donzelli’s scale, FEES and VFSS showed better results in Group A at 3 months, while at 12 months they did not show statistically significant differences between ESL and OPHL I in terms of laryngeal penetration and aspiration. The SOAL questionnaire showed satisfactory life quality. Conclusion: Swallowing evaluation by FEES and VFSS did not demonstrate statistically significant differences at 12 months post-op between two surgeries, although ESL showed less cases of laryngeal penetration and aspiration at 3 months post-op. Anyway, good results of any surgery depend on careful patient selection and the surgeon’s experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmelo Saraniti & Francesco Ciodaro & Cosimo Galletti & Salvatore Gallina & Barbara Verro, 2022. "Swallowing Outcomes in Open Partial Horizontal Laryngectomy Type I and Endoscopic Supraglottic Laryngectomy: A Comparative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-9, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:13:p:8050-:d:852943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/8050/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/8050/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carmelo Saraniti & Barbara Verro & Francesco Ciodaro & Francesco Galletti, 2022. "Oncological Outcomes of Primary vs. Salvage OPHL Type II: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-11, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:13:p:8050-:d:852943. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.