Abstract
Objectives
To examine and compare the outcomes of various types of glottic widening surgery (GWS) for initial management of bilateral vocal fold paralysis (BVFP) in children, the outcomes of different GWS procedures in children who underwent initial tracheostomy, and the rate of decannulation in children who underwent tracheostomy alone versus tracheostomy followed by GWS.
Data Sources
PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) on September 9, 2019, with no date restriction.
Review Methods
Articles focusing on GWS or tracheostomy for initial management of BVFP were included. Articles describing patients who received no surgical intervention for BVFP were excluded.
Results
A total of 5989 articles were reviewed: 67 articles met inclusion criteria, and 240 patients were incorporated into the analysis. Patients who underwent primary GWS had an eventual tracheostomy rate of 6.0% (5/83). There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of tracheostomy, reoperation, or mortality among cricoid split, suture lateralization, and cordectomy/cordotomy. Patients who underwent primary tracheostomy failed to achieve decannulation in 36.9% (58/157) of cases. Decannulation was more likely in tracheostomized children who received GWS than those who did not (odds ratio, 6.336; P < .0001).
Conclusions
Most children who undergo primary GWS for BVFP avoid tracheostomy or reoperation. These data demonstrated no differences in surgical outcomes among the most common types of GWS for BVFP. For children who receive a tracheostomy as their first intervention for BVFP, GWS is associated with a significantly improved rate of decannulation.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
