Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-8mwbx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-26T11:40:38.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Flaccid neoglottis’ following supracricoid partial laryngectomy: laryngoscopic revision assisted by navigation system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2011

M Nakayama ,
Y Seino ,
M Okamoto  and
T Matsuki
M Nakayama*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
Y Seino
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
M Okamoto
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
T Matsuki
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Meijin Nakayama, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan Fax: +81 42 778 8441 E-mail: meijin@med.kitasato-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Supracricoid partial laryngectomy is a reliable laryngeal preservation procedure for tumour stage 2 and selected stage 3 to 4 laryngeal cancers. Of 70 patients thus treated, two (3 per cent) had ‘flaccid neoglottis’, i.e. redundant mucosa at the inner arytenoid edge which intermittently obstructed the neoglottis. We discuss the mechanism and management of this complication.

Method:

The two cases are presented. A navigation system was used to assist surgery. Neoglottal spatial alteration (specifically cross-sectional area) was assessed pre- and post-operatively using three-dimensional computed tomography. Voice was also evaluated.

Results:

Inspiratory stridor and delayed stomal closure were the main symptoms. Minimum neoglottal cross-sectional area was smaller in case one than in non-affected patients. Both patients had relatively rougher and breathier voices, but had adapted well to this.

Conclusion:

Flaccid neoglottis is mainly due to excessive anterior retraction of residual laryngeal mucosa and to excessive mucosal pliability with age. A navigation system was useful for confirmation, but the potential for incorrect image recognition should be kept in mind. Flaccid neoglottis was treatable, with improved laryngeal function.

Keywords

Laryngeal NeoplasmsCarcinomaLaryngectomy

Information

Type
Clinical Records
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 125 , Issue 12 , December 2011 , pp. 1315 - 1319
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Laccourreye, H, Laccourreye, O, Weinstein, G, Menard, M, Brasnu, D. Supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy: a partial laryngeal procedure for glottic carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1990;99:421–6Google Scholar
2Laccourreye, O, Laccourreye, L, Garcia, D, Gutierrez-Fonseca, R, Brasnu, D, Weinstein, G. Vertical partial laryngectomy versus supracricoid partial laryngectomy for selected carcinomas of the true vocal cord classified as T2. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000;109:965–71Google Scholar
3Nakayama, M, Okamoto, M, Miyamoto, S, Yokobori, S, Takeda, M, Masaki, T et al. Supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy or cricohyoido-pexy: experience on 32 patients. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008;35:77–82Google Scholar
4Nakayama, M, Hirose, H, Miyamoto, S, Yokobori, S, Takeda, M, Seino, Y et al. Electromyography of the cricoarytenoid unit during supracricoid laryngectomy with a cricohyoidoepiglottopexy procedure. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:87–91Google Scholar
5Weinstein, G, Laccourreye, O, Ruiz, C, Dooley, P, Chalian, A, Mirza, N. Larynx preservation with supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111:1–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Naudo, P, Laccourreye, O, Weinstein, G, Jouffre, V, Laccourreye, H, Brasnu, D. Complications and functional outcome after supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:124–9Google Scholar
7Makeieff, M, Venegoni, D, Mercante, G, Crampette, L, Guerrier, B. Supracricoid partial laryngectomies after failure of radiation therapy. Laryngoscope 2005;115:353–7Google Scholar
8Laccourreye, O, Brasnu, D, Laccourreye, L, Weinstein, G. Major complications Ruptured pexis after supracricoid partial laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1997;106:159–62Google Scholar
9Holsinger, C, Laccourreye, O, Weinstein, G, Diaz, E, McWhorter, A. Technical refinements in the supracricoid partial laryngectomy to optimize functional outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:809–20Google Scholar
10Diaz, E, Laccourreye, L, Veivers, D, Garcia, D, Brasnu, D, Laccourreye, O. Laryngeal stenosis after supracricoid partial laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000;109:1077–81Google Scholar