• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Laryngeal Framework Surgery Has High Level of Efficacy

by Sue Pondrom • August 9, 2010

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

What are the success and complication rates of laryngeal framework surgery (LFS), including medialization laryngoplasty (ML) and arytenoid adduction (AA)?

You Might Also Like

  • Is Laryngeal Framework Surgery Safe in the Radiated Larynx?
  • Factors to Consider in Preventing Laryngeal Injury Following Intubation
  • Changing Trends in Laryngeal Cancer and High-Volume Providers
  • Scribes May Be Useful in Providing High-Level Otolaryngology Care

Background: Since its introduction in the 1970s, LFS, comprised of ML and AA, has been increasingly utilized for vocal fold paralysis and glottal incompetence. Little is known, however, about the incidence of ML/AA surgery nationwide or its success and complications.

Study design: A 25-item questionnaire was mailed to 6,644 board-certified otolaryngologists. Their responses were compared to the findings of a 1998 study to assess trends over time. The 1998 study had concentrated primarily on ML as an indicator of experience with LFS.

Setting: Department of Otolaryngology and the School of Dental Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Penn.

Synopsis: Of the response rate of 25.7 percent (n=1,707), 63 percent perform ML and/or AA, representing 29,748 procedures. Experience with Silastic medialization implants was shown to have decreased over time, while utilization of other materials has increased. The overall complication rate was 15 percent, including 0.8 percent implant extrusion and 6 percent in revision rates. Compared to 1998, there was an overall relative decrease in complication rates with increased experience with ML. The most common revision was placement of a larger implant. Airway compromise requiring intervention was observed in 2.2 percent and suboptimal voice outcome in 4 percent. While the study encompassed more than double the procedures reported in 1998, the number of surgeons performing these surgeries has not significantly increased. Study limitations were possible physician selection bias and the reliance on physician memory for survey input.

Bottom line: LFS plays an increased role as a treatment modality for vocal fold paralysis, with complication rates only slightly increased and the need for revision surgery unchanged as compared to 1998.

Citation: Young VN, Zullo TG, Rosen CA. Analysis of laryngeal framework surgery: 10-year follow-up to a national survey. Laryngoscope. 2010;120(8):1602-1608.

—Reviewed by Sue Pondrom

Filed Under: Laryngology, Literature Reviews Tagged With: AA, arytenoid adduction, laryngeal framework surgery, laryngology, LFS, medialization laryngoplasty, ML, vocal cord paralysis

You Might Also Like:

  • Is Laryngeal Framework Surgery Safe in the Radiated Larynx?
  • Factors to Consider in Preventing Laryngeal Injury Following Intubation
  • Changing Trends in Laryngeal Cancer and High-Volume Providers
  • Scribes May Be Useful in Providing High-Level Otolaryngology Care

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939