Systematic Review of Voice Outcomes for Injection Laryngoplasty Performed under Local vs General Anesthesia

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


ObjectiveTo assist otolaryngologists in counseling patients with hoarseness who would benefit from injection laryngoplasty on whether or not to perform the procedure in the office vs the operating room.Data SourcesCochrane library, CINAHL, PubMed, and EMBASE.Review MethodsSystematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting standards of English-language articles that compared voice outcomes for in-office and in the operating room injection laryngoplasty. Two independent investigators assessed study eligibility, rated the quality using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS), and abstracted data for comparative analysis.ResultsOf 689 initial studies, 4 observational, comparative studies met inclusion criteria, with follow-up of 2 weeks to 12 months postinjection. Laryngoplasty was most commonly performed for vocal fold immobility with varied injectable materials (micronized dermis, hyaluronic acid, and calcium hydroxyapatite). Follow-up ranged from 2 weeks to 12 months. Voice outcomes improved in all studies, with comparable improvement for patients injected in the office vs the operating room (P = .42 to P = .88). Meta-analysis of 3 studies showed no difference in Voice Handicap Index–10 voice outcomes by treatment setting (standardized mean difference −0.11, P = .441), with the 95% confidence interval (–0.405 to 0.176), making it unlikely that anything larger than a small or trivial difference was missed.ConclusionOur systematic review makes it unlikely that meaningful clinical differences exist in postprocedure voice outcomes for injection laryngoplasty in the office vs the operating room.

    loading  Loading Related Articles