• 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
    • Technology
    • 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
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • 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
    • Technology
    • 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
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies

June 1, 2013

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

Bottom line: Because there is a relatively high rate of hearing loss progression in unilateral EVA patients, otolaryngologists should consider offering patients close audiometric monitoring and SLC26A4 genetic testing.

You Might Also Like

  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
Explore This Issue
June 2013

Citation: Greinwald J, deAlarcon A, Cohen A, et al. Significance of unilateral enlarged vestibular aqueduct. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:1537-1546.

—Reviewed by Amy Eckner

Patients with VFP After Thyroidectomy Incur High Cost of Care

Do patients with vocal fold paralysis (VFP) after thyroid surgery incur higher health care costs than those without and, if so, how much?

Background: Thyroidectomies are common in the United States, with bilateral and unilateral VFP occurring at a rate as high as 18.6 percent. The additional treatment that is required incurs a higher cost for patients and insurers that could be avoided without VFP. Actual figures for this cost have not been previously reported.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study of 76 VFP patients and 238 control patients without paralysis through December 2010. Charge analysis ended at 90 days post-operative. Only medical group medical records were used to record charges rather than actual amounts paid.

Setting: Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.

Synopsis: Mean tumor weight and

average BMI were not statistically different between VFP and control patients. Proportionally, more VFP patients (8/76) received revision surgeries than control patients (10/238). Serious post-operative morbidity markers (post-operative intubation, tracheotomy, indwelling feeding tube placement, respiratory failure, swallowing study/seophagram) were more common in VFP patients. Length of stay was significantly longer for VFP patients (6.33 days/3.12 days in ICU vs. 2.80 days/0.87 days in ICU). The geometric mean charge for hospitalization for VFP patients was $34,200, compared with $21,600 for the control group, with VFP patients accruing more charges in follow-up costs. Bilateral VFP patients had significantly higher charges than those for unilateral VFP patients only at the 30-day mark. The most expensive hospitalization among VFP patients was $259,480. There were some very expensive charges in the control group but only three bills higher than $100,000. Study limitations included the fact that charge data ended at post-operative day 90 (most surgery related to VFP took place much later), a possibility of coding errors and likely underreporting of transient VFP.

Bottom line: VFP patients incurred a much greater cost for health care in the first 90 days after surgery than those without VFP. The likelihood of VFP was not related to malignancy, BMI or gland weight in this study.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Single Page

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: adenotonsillectomy, clinical research, endoscopic sinus surgery, ESS, hearing loss, OSAIssue: June 2013

You Might Also Like:

  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies
  • Literature Review: A Roundup of Important Recent Studies

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

More and more medical trainees are taking dedicated, prolonged gap years. Did you?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • Office Laryngoscopy Is Not Aerosol Generating When Evaluated by Optical Particle Sizer
    • Cochlear Implants Improve Performance and Net Savings in Infants
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Top 10 LARY and LIO Articles of 2024
    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?
    • 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
    • Keeping Watch for Skin Cancers on the Head and Neck
    • Short-Term Efficacy of Biologics in Recalcitrant AFRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    • The Devaluation of Otolaryngology: An Evaluation of CMS’s Involvement in Physician Reimbursement
    • Embolized Middle Meningeal Artery as a Surgical Landmark in Infratemporal Fossa
    • Lord of the (Magnetic) Rings: Rigid Bronchoscopy for Aspirated Magnetic Foreign Bodies in Tertiary Bronchi
    • What Otolaryngologists Can Learn from Athletes

Follow Us

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

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 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