» Articles » PMID: 22310836

Laryngotracheal Stenosis and Restenosis. What Has the Influence on the Final Outcome?

Overview
Date 2012 Feb 8
PMID 22310836
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of various parameters on the course and treatment outcome in patients with laryngotracheal stenosis and recurrent stenosis. Two groups of patients were compared: Group I included 29 patients with primary stenosis, and Group II included 22 patients with recurrent stenosis. The most frequent etiological factor for the development of stenosis was prolonged endotracheal intubation (79.3:77.3%), with subglottic-tracheal (44.8:45.5%) and tracheal (48.3:36.4%) localization being the most affected. Subglottic-tracheal stenosis was more common in men. There were no significant differences between the groups in regard to the grade of lumen obstruction and the length of the resected segment. In male patients, the length of the resected stenotic segment was significantly longer. Subglottic-tracheal stenoses were longer than tracheal ones. Various surgical procedures were performed, with additional management of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis, if necessary. Laryngotracheal reconstruction (LTR) with costal cartilage grafting (CCG) was statistically significantly more often performed in Group II, while cricotracheal resection (CTR) was more common in Group I. The incidence of complications in Group I was 24.1%, and in Group II it was 31.8%. Satisfactory airway lumen with undisturbed breathing was achieved in 93.1% of patients in Group I, and in 95.3% in Group II. Since the success rate was similar in both groups of the patients, it could be concluded that treatment outcome depends less on the factors associated with the stenosis, and more on adequate choice of surgical procedure and surgical team know-how.

Citing Articles

A computational analysis on the impact of multilevel laryngotracheal stenosis on airflow and drug particle dynamics in the upper airway.

Gosman R, Sicard R, Cohen S, Frank-Ito D Exp Comput Multiph Flow. 2023; 5(3):235-246.

PMID: 37305073 PMC: 10024600. DOI: 10.1007/s42757-022-0151-9.


Protecting the Airway and the Physician: Lessons from 214 Cases of Endotracheal Intubation Litigation.

Eloy J, Pashkova A, Amin M, Anthony C, Munoz D, Gubenko Y Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2022; 2022:8209644.

PMID: 36312452 PMC: 9613385. DOI: 10.1155/2022/8209644.


Serum interleukin 1β in patients with acquired laryngotracheal stenosis.

Azwal N, Lokanathan Y, Azman M, Ng M, Mohamed A, Mat Baki M Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2022; 42(3):250-256.

PMID: 35880366 PMC: 9330755. DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-N1981.


Comparison of Inhaled Drug Delivery in Patients With One- and Two-level Laryngotracheal Stenosis.

Gosman R, Sicard R, Cohen S, Frank-Ito D Laryngoscope. 2022; 133(2):366-374.

PMID: 35608335 PMC: 10332660. DOI: 10.1002/lary.30212.


Engineering an immunomodulatory drug-eluting stent to treat laryngotracheal stenosis.

Duvvuri M, Motz K, Murphy M, Feeley M, Ding D, Lee A Biomater Sci. 2019; 7(5):1863-1874.

PMID: 30874257 PMC: 6478537. DOI: 10.1039/c8bm01623b.


References
1.
Hebra A, Powell D, Smith C, OTHERSEN Jr H . Balloon tracheoplasty in children: results of a 15-year experience. J Pediatr Surg. 1991; 26(8):957-61. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3468(91)90843-i. View

2.
Remacle M, Lawson G, Gaafar A, Keghian J, Jamart J . Palliative treatment for tracheal stenoses using carbon dioxide laser and the Gianturco stent. Long-term results. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999; 108(9):842-50. DOI: 10.1177/000348949910800905. View

3.
Tantinikorn W, Sinrachtanant C, Assanasen P . How to overcome laryngotracheal stenosis. J Med Assoc Thai. 2004; 87(7):800-9. View

4.
Beste D, Toohill R . Microtrapdoor flap repair of laryngeal and tracheal stenosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991; 100(5 Pt 1):420-3. DOI: 10.1177/000348949110000513. View

5.
Myer 3rd C, OConnor D, Cotton R . Proposed grading system for subglottic stenosis based on endotracheal tube sizes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1994; 103(4 Pt 1):319-23. DOI: 10.1177/000348949410300410. View