Introduction. Treatment for bilateral vocal fold paralysis (BVFP) has evolved from external irreversible procedures to endolaryngeal laser surgery with greater focus on anatomic and functional preservation. Since the introduction of endolaryngeal laser arytenoidectomy, certain modifications have been described, such as partial resection procedures and mucosa sparing techniques as opposed to total arytenoidectomy. Discussion. The primary outcome measure in studies on BVFP treatment using total or partial arytenoidectomy is avoidance of tracheotomy or decannulation and reported success ranges between 90 and 100% in this regard. Phonation is invariably affected and arytenoidectomy worsens both aerodynamic and acoustic vocal properties. Recent reports indicate that partial and total arytenoidectomies have similar outcome in respect to phonation and swallowing. We use CO2 laser assisted partial arytenoidectomy with a posteromedially based mucosal flap for primary cases and reserve total arytenoidectomy for revision. Lateral suturing of preserved mucosa provides tension on the vocal fold leading to better voice and leaves no raw surgical field to unpredictable scarring or granulation. Conclusion. Arytenoidectomy as a permanent static procedure remains a traditional yet sound choice in the treatment of BVFP. Laser dissection provides a precise dissection in a narrow surgical field and the possibility to perform partial arytenoidectomy.
Background
We aimed to assess the feasibility and short‐term clinical outcomes of surgical procedures for cancer at an institution using a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)‐free surgical pathway during the peak phase of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) pandemic.
Materials and Methods
This was a single‐center study, including cancer patients from all surgical departments, who underwent elective surgical procedures during the first peak phase between March 10 and June 30, 2020. The primary outcomes were the rate of postoperative SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and 30‐day pulmonary or non‐pulmonary related morbidity and mortality associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 disease.
Results
Four hundred and four cancer patients fulfilling inclusion criteria were analyzed. The rate of patients who underwent open and minimally invasive procedures was 61.9% and 38.1%, respectively. Only one (0.2%) patient died during the study period due to postoperative SARS‐CoV2 infection because of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The overall non‐SARS‐CoV2 related 30‐day morbidity and mortality rates were 19.3% and 1.7%, respectively; whereas the overall SARS‐CoV2 related 30‐day morbidity and mortality rates were 0.2% and 0.2%, respectively.
Conclusions
Under strict institutional policies and measures to establish a COVID‐19‐free surgical pathway, elective and emergency cancer operations can be performed with acceptable perioperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality.
We aimed to compare reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) results of nasopharyngeal aspiration (NA) and nasopharyngeal swab (NS) samples in the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. NS was obtained with a dacron swab and NA was performed by aspiration cannula. The sampling was performed by an otolaryngologist to ensure standardized correct sampling from the nasopharynx. RT‐PCR was performed for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). The level of agreement between the result of NA and NS samples for each patient was analyzed. The Ct values were compared. Thirty‐three patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 56.3 years. Thirteen subjects resulted negative with both NS and NA; 20 subjects resulted positive with NA and 18 subjects resulted positive with NS. The mean values of Ct for NA samples and NS samples were 24.6 ± 5.9 and 24 ± 6.7, respectively. There was no statistical difference between Ct values of NA and NS samples (
p
= 0.48). RT‐PCR for SARS‐Cov2 performed with NA sample and NS sample showed a strong correlation regarding the positivity/negativity and the Ct values.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.