Consistent Technique Limits Suspension Laryngoscopy Complications

Abstract

Introduction Suspension laryngoscopy (SL) is a commonly performed procedure among otolaryngologists. Several studies have shown that adverse effects occur regularly with SL.

Objective To evaluate the postoperative complications of SL, and to determine if protecting the dentition and the oral mucosa and limiting suspension times decrease the overall incidence of oral cavity and pharyngeal complications of SL.

Methods All of the cases of SL performed by 1 surgeon from November 2008 through September 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. A consistent technique for dental and mucosal protection was utilized, and suspension times were strictly limited to 30 consecutive minutes. The incidence of postoperative complications was calculated and analyzed with respect to gender, smoking status, dentition, laryngoscope type, and suspension system.

Results A total of 213 consecutive SL cases were reviewed, including 174 patients (94 male, 80 female). The overall postoperative complication rate was of 3.8%. Four patients experienced tongue-related complications, two experienced oral mucosal alterations, one had a dental injury, and one experienced a minor facial burn. The complication incidence was greater with the Zeitels system (12.5%) compared with the Lewy suspension system (3.3%), although it was not significant (p = 0.4). Likewise, the association of complications with other patient factors was not statistically significant.

Conclusion Only 8 out of 213 cases in the present series experienced complications, which is significantly less than the complication rates observed in other reports. Consistent and conscientious protection of the dentition and of the oral mucosa and limiting suspension times to 30 minutes are factors unique to our series that appear to reduce complications in endolaryngeal surgery.

Keywords

suspension laryngoscopy - endolaryngeal surgery - suspension microlaryngoscopy - laryngoscopy complications

Paper Presentation

Presented in poster format at the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation AAO-HNSF Annual Meeting, held between September 27 and 30, 2015 in Dallas, TX. Awarded “Top Rated” Prize.

• References

• 1 Hendrix RA, Ferouz A, Bacon CK. Admission planning and complications of direct laryngoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994; 110 (06) 510-516
• 2 Hill RS, Koltai PJ, Parnes SM. Airway complications from laryngoscopy and panendoscopy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1987; 96 (06) 691-694
• 3 Hochman II, Zeitels SM, Heaton JT. Analysis of the forces and position required for direct laryngoscopic exposure of the anterior vocal folds. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999; 108 (08) 715-724
• 4 Wenig BL, Raphael N, Stern JR, Shikowitz MJ, Abramson AL. Cardiac complications of suspension laryngoscopy. Fact or fiction?. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986; 112 (08) 860-862
• 5 Gugatschka M, Gerstenberger C, Friedrich G. Analysis of forces applied during microlaryngoscopy: a descriptive study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 265 (09) 1083-1087
• 6 Jung H, Kim HJ. Dexamethasone contributes to the patient management after ambulatory laryngeal microsurgery by reducing sore throat. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 270 (12) 3115-3119
• 7 Rosen CA, Andrade Filho PA, Scheffel L, Buckmire R. Oropharyngeal complications of suspension laryngoscopy: a prospective study. Laryngoscope 2005; 115 (09) 1681-1684
• 8 Tessema B, Sulica L, Yu GP, Sessions RB. Tongue paresthesia and dysgeusia following operative microlaryngoscopy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006; 115 (01) 18-22
• 9 Landis BN, Giger R, Dulguerov P, Hugentobler M, Hummel T, Lacroix JS. Gustatory function after microlaryngoscopy. Acta Otolaryngol 2007; 127 (10) 1086-1090
• 10 Mohamad H, Mohamad I. Tongue paraesthesia and dysgeusia post suspension laryngoscopy. Kobe J Med Sci 2012; 58 (02) E60-E62
• 11 Cinar U, Akgul G, Seven H, Celik M, Cinar S, Dadas B. Determination of the changes in the hypoglossal nerve function after suspension laryngoscopy with needle electromyography of the tongue. J Laryngol Otol 2004; 118 (04) 289-293
• 12 Gaut A, Williams M. Lingual nerve injury during suspension microlaryngoscopy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 126 (05) 669-671
• 13 Dos Anjos Corvo MA, Inacio A, de Campos Mello MB, Alessandra Eckley C, Campos Duprat A. Extra-laryngeal complications of suspension laryngoscopy. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2007; 73 (06) 727-732
• 14 Klussmann JP, Knoedgen R, Wittekindt C, Damm M, Eckel HE. Complications of suspension laryngoscopy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002; 111 (11) 972-976
• 15 Friedrich G, Gugatschka M. Influence of head positioning on the forces occurring during microlaryngoscopy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 266 (07) 999-1003
• 16 Fang R, Chen H, Sun J. Analysis of pressure applied during microlaryngoscopy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269 (05) 1471-1476
• 17 Crossland GJ, Pfleiderer AG. ‘Boil and Bite’ mouth guards for direct laryngoscopy. Clin Otolaryngol 2007; 32 (02) 121-122