Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T17:00:14.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pharyngeal pouch: comparison of surgical treatment with botulinum toxin injection to the cricopharyngeus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2019

K Lau  and
M G Watson
K Lau*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, UK
M G Watson
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Miss Kimberley Lau, ENT Department (c/o ENT secretaries), Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Thorne Road, Doncaster DN2 5LT, UK E-mail: kimberleylau@doctors.org.uk Fax: +(0)1302 647024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Pharyngeal pouch surgical treatments can be carried out via an endoscopic or open approach. Injection of botulinum toxin into the cricopharyngeus was first described as an alternative treatment to the more invasive surgical procedures performed for cricopharyngeal dysfunction. It has not been previously described as a treatment option for pharyngeal pouch.

Objectives

To compare operative time, average stay, complication rates and symptom control between endoscopic laser diverticulotomy, botulinum toxin injection and open procedures for pharyngeal pouch patients.

Methods

The medical records for 66 pharyngeal pouch procedures, carried out on 47 patients treated between 2011 and 2017, were identified and reviewed.

Results

The mean operative time was 21 minutes for botulinum toxin injection, 38 for endoscopic laser diverticulotomy and 104 for open surgery. The mean hospital stay was 0.6 days for botulinum toxin injection, 4.7 for endoscopic laser diverticulotomy and 4 for open surgery. The improvement in Reflux Symptom Index scores was statistically significant for both endoscopic laser diverticulotomy and botulinum toxin injection. Botulinum toxin injection had a 0 per cent complication rate.

Conclusion

Botulinum toxin injection is a safe and effective treatment for pharyngeal pouch.

Keywords

Zenker DiverticulumEndoscopyLasersBotulinum Toxin

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 133 , Issue 2 , February 2019 , pp. 125 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2019 

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

Footnotes

Miss K Lau takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

Presented as a poster at the British Academic Conference in Otolaryngology, 4–6 July 2018, Manchester, UK.

References

1National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Endoscopic Stapling of Pharyngeal Pouch: Interventional Procedures Guidance. Manchester: NICE, 2003Google Scholar
2Albers, DV, Kondo, A, Bernardo, WM, Sakai, P, Moura, RN, Silva, GL et al. Endoscopic versus surgical approach in the treatment of Zenker's diverticulum: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2016;4:678–86Google Scholar
3Siddiq, M, Sood, S, Strachan, D. Pharyngeal pouch (Zenker's diverticulum). Postgrad Med J 2001;77:506–1110.1136/pmj.77.910.506Google Scholar
4Leong, SC, Wilkie, MD, Webb, CJ. Endoscopic stapling of Zenker's diverticulum: establishing national baselines for auditing clinical outcomes in the United Kingdom. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;269:1877–8410.1007/s00405-012-1945-3Google Scholar
5Schneider, I, Thumfart, WF, Pototschnig, C, Eckel, HE. Treatment of dysfunction of the cricopharyngeal muscle with botulinum A toxin: introduction of a new, noninvasive method. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1994;103:31–510.1177/000348949410300105Google Scholar
6Kelly, EA, Koszewski, IJ, Jaradeh, SS, Merati, AL, Blumin, JH, Bock, JM. Botulinum toxin injection for the treatment of upper esophageal sphincter dysfunction. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2013;122:100–810.1177/000348941312200205Google Scholar