PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the evolution of supracricoid partial laryngectomy (SCPL) in indications, surgical techniques and outcomes through last decades. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 146 patients affected by laryngeal cancer treated with SCPL was carried on. We defined: (1) group A, 100 patients treated by cold instruments between 1995 and 2004; (2) group B, 46 patients treated by harmonic scalpel between 2005 and 2010. Complications rate, and functional and oncological results were documented and a comparison between the two groups was made; histopathological analysis of surgical margins was evaluated and correlated with local incidence of recurrence. RESULTS: Significant differences in age mean-value (p=0.02), T classification (p=0.007), and in indication for more advanced-staged patients were found in group B (p=0.001). Surgical procedure was shorter in group B (p<0.001), with shorter swallowing recovery (p=0.003). Oncological outcomes did not report any significant differences. Group B showed a higher incidence of post- operative arytenoid edema (p=0.03) associated with a lower rate of pneumonia (p=0.038). Despite a higher rate of close or positive-margins found in group B no higher incidence of local-recurrence was reported (p=0.02) compared to group A. CONCLUSIONS: We documented changing in indications and surgical technique for SCPL because of the development of modern diagnostic techniques and the introduction of low-thermal injury device allowing a more challenging tumor excision as well as with a shorter swallowing recovery in our series.

Subtotal supracricoid laryngectomy: Changing in indications, surgical techniques and use of new surgical devices

FIORINI, FRANCESCA ROMANA;PAIAR, FABIOLA;
2014-01-01

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the evolution of supracricoid partial laryngectomy (SCPL) in indications, surgical techniques and outcomes through last decades. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 146 patients affected by laryngeal cancer treated with SCPL was carried on. We defined: (1) group A, 100 patients treated by cold instruments between 1995 and 2004; (2) group B, 46 patients treated by harmonic scalpel between 2005 and 2010. Complications rate, and functional and oncological results were documented and a comparison between the two groups was made; histopathological analysis of surgical margins was evaluated and correlated with local incidence of recurrence. RESULTS: Significant differences in age mean-value (p=0.02), T classification (p=0.007), and in indication for more advanced-staged patients were found in group B (p=0.001). Surgical procedure was shorter in group B (p<0.001), with shorter swallowing recovery (p=0.003). Oncological outcomes did not report any significant differences. Group B showed a higher incidence of post- operative arytenoid edema (p=0.03) associated with a lower rate of pneumonia (p=0.038). Despite a higher rate of close or positive-margins found in group B no higher incidence of local-recurrence was reported (p=0.02) compared to group A. CONCLUSIONS: We documented changing in indications and surgical technique for SCPL because of the development of modern diagnostic techniques and the introduction of low-thermal injury device allowing a more challenging tumor excision as well as with a shorter swallowing recovery in our series.
2014
Mannelli, Giuditta; Meccariello, Giuseppe; Deganello, Alberto; Fiorini, FRANCESCA ROMANA; Paiar, Fabiola; Gallo, Oreste
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S019607091400163X-main.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Tipologia: Versione finale editoriale
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 529.14 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
529.14 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/766083
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact