Objective Endoscopic surgical management or injection laryngoplasty of type 1 laryngeal clefts in pediatric patients is used in those who do not respond to conservative treatment. This study compares conservative treatment, endoscopic surgical repair, and injection laryngoplasty for the management of type 1 laryngeal clefts. Data Sources PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Review Methods This systematic review included studies of patients with type 1 laryngeal clefts who were managed with conservative treatment, injection laryngoplasty, or endoscopic repair, and all studies reported postintervention outcomes. Two independent investigators assessed study eligibility, rated the quality, and extracted data for analysis. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis of pooled data. Results Of the 1209 studies identified, 27 met inclusion criteria. There were 543 patients with type 1 laryngeal clefts represented in the studies, with outcomes reported for 537. Conservative therapy had a 52% (95% CI, 37%-66%; I2 = 63%) success rate at improving symptoms, while endoscopic repair had a significantly higher percentage resolution of symptoms (70%; 95% CI, 59%-79%; I2 = 62%, P < .001) as compared with conservative treatment (51%; 95% CI, 36%-65%; I2 = 62%) or injection laryngoplasty (36%; 95% CI, 20%-57%; I2 = 70%). The quality scores of the studies ranged from 7 to 12 out of 16. Conclusion Our systematic review demonstrated significant improvement and resolution of symptoms for patients with type 1 laryngeal clefts treated with endoscopic repair as compared with other modalities. More prospective and controlled studies comparing treatment strategies with validated instruments to measure outcomes are necessary to determine their efficacy in the management of type 1 laryngeal clefts.

4.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic versus conventional neck dissection in patients with head and neck malignancy.Methods: An electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases was conducted. We included studies with direct comparisons of robotic and open neck dissections and performed dual, independent data extraction for primary outcomes of nodal yield, recurrence rate, subjective cosmetic assessment, operative time, length of stay, and rates of perioperative complications. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean difference (SMD), absolute risk difference (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Eleven comparative studies comprising 225 robotic and 430 open neck dissections met the final selection criteria. All studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Robotic surgery improved cosmesis (SMD 1.15, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56) but also increased operative time (SMD 1.94, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.63). Total nodal yield, pathological nodal yield, recurrence rate, rates of perioperative complications, and length of stay were not significantly different between the two groups, and the 95% CIs suggested that false negative results were unlikely. The results remained consistent after stratification by pathology and robotic technique.Conclusion: Although robotic neck dissection may offer similar perioperative outcomes compared to conventional neck dissection, it requires significantly more operative time. Whereas cosmesis was found to be superior among the robotic cohort, this must be viewed cautiously given the nonvalidated measurement tool that was used and the inherent reporting bias associated with it.

Objective To systematically review the current literature regarding the operative outcomes of stapes surgery for stapes fixation via the endoscopic and microscopic approaches. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Review Methods An electronic search was conducted with the keywords “endoscop* or microscop*” and “stapes surgery or stapedectomy or stapedotomy or otosclerosis or stapes fixation.” Studies were included if they compared endoscopy with microscopy for stapes surgery performed for stapes fixation and evaluated hearing outcomes and postoperative complications. Articles focusing on stapes surgery other than for stapes fixation were excluded. Results The database search yielded 1317 studies; 12 remained after dual-investigator screening for quantitative analysis. The mean MINORS score was 18 of 24, indicating a low risk of bias. A meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the groups with regard to operative time, chorda tympani nerve manipulation or sacrifice, or postoperative vertigo. There was a 2.6-dB mean improvement in the change in air-bone gap in favor of endoscopic stapes surgery and a 15.2% increased incidence in postoperative dysgeusia in the microscopic group, but the studies are heterogeneous. Conclusions Endoscopic stapes surgery appears to be a reasonable alternative to microscopic stapes surgery, with similar operative times, complications, and hearing outcomes. Superior visibility with the endoscope was consistently reported in all the studies. Future studies should have standardized methods of reporting visibility, hearing outcomes, and postoperative complications to truly establish if endoscopic stapes surgery is equivalent or superior to microscopic stapes surgery.

Objective Several surgical interventions are offered to patients with Ménière’s disease (MD) who fail medical management. Although outcomes have historically been reported according to American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery guidelines, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to evaluate treatments. This study reviews PROMs used to assess surgical treatments for MD and compares the effect of each intervention based on PROM scores. Data Sources PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Review Methods This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language studies that reported PROMs for surgical treatments of MD. Two independent investigators assessed study eligibility, rated the quality using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), and abstracted data for comparative analysis. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis of pooled data. Results Of 148 unique studies identified, 11 satisfied inclusion criteria. The Ménière’s Disease Outcome Questionnaire (MDOQ) was the most commonly used survey. Interventions included intratympanic gentamicin, vestibular nerve section, endolymphatic sac surgery, and labyrinthectomy. Pooled analysis of 8 studies that used the MDOQ instrument demonstrated statistically significant improvements in quality of life but did not identify a difference between destructive and nondestructive procedures. Conclusion Although our review shows significant improvements in PROM scores for both destructive and nondestructive interventions, there was no significant difference noted between treatment types. We cannot draw conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of specific interventions, and the results do not account for placebo effects or the natural history of the disease. Further investigation with randomized controlled trials should be considered in future studies.

No sponsorships or competing interests have been disclosed for this article.

Objective Chronic sialorrhea commonly occurs in patients with neurodevelopmental disorders. While conservative management can provide sufficient symptom control, surgical intervention is often required. One of the most common procedures utilized is submandibular gland excision (SMGE), with or without parotid duct ligation or rerouting (PDL or PDR). This study aims to compare these surgical approaches and their outcomes. Data Sources PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Review Methods This systematic review includes studies of patients with chronic sialorrhea treated with SMGE alone or SMGE plus PDR or PDL and reports on postintervention outcomes and complications. Two independent investigators assessed study eligibility, rated quality, and extracted data for analysis. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis of pooled data. Results Of 3186 studies identified, 21 met inclusion criteria, with 708 patients: 103 underwent SMGE alone (15%); 299 (42%), SMGE and PDL; and 306 (43%), SMGE plus PDR. Overall, a majority of patients had significant improvement, with very good to excellent control of symptoms after surgery: SMGE, 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%); SMGE and PDL, 79% (95% CI, 73%-85%); and SMGE and PDR, 85% (95% CI, 75%-92%). Importantly, there was no significant difference in outcomes with the addition of PDL or PDR. Reported complications included sialocele, parotitis, dental caries, and dry mouth. Conclusion Our systematic review identified consistent positive outcomes with SMGE for patients with chronic sialorrhea but no additional benefit when PDR or PDL was performed as a concurrent procedure.

No abstract