Safety of in-office laryngology procedures

Improving Laryngeal Procedure Workflow: Moving From the Operating Room to the Outpatient Setting

OBJECTIVES

Laryngology disease burden is growing while theater capacity is falling. Over half a million patients are waiting for ENT care in England alone (1). The demand for laryngology services has continued to grow significantly, particularly post-COVID (2). Meanwhile, the number and efficiency of ENT theater lists are reduced (3). To tackle the growing backlog, NHS England has emphasized the need for innovative strategies by separating elective from emergency services and by increasing the resilience of elective delivery (4). The establishment of an office-based laryngology procedure clinic is a potential solution.

METHODS

We offer a narrative review and audit of our experience in founding an in-office laryngology procedure service within a tertiary NHS center with the aim of streamlining this setup process for other interested ENT units.

RESULTS

We outline an in-depth exploration of the personnel, equipment, and processes necessary to establish an in-office procedure clinic. Our experience showed that the procedure clinic functions well when implemented within the framework of existing ENT elective and emergency services. Although there is initial investment required in terms of money, effort, and time, our outcomes show that the clinical and economic benefits of the clinic outweigh the costs, also allowing for patients to access investigations and treatments reliably and efficiently.

CONCLUSION

Setting up a laryngology in-office procedure clinic within the NHS confers patient, organizational, and economic benefits. It provides a novel and resilient approach in addressing the growing backlog of patients awaiting laryngology care and should be popularized in the current health care environment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 135:1132-1142, 2025.

Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy for accessing laryngeal masses with unsatisfactory laryngoscopy and biopsy results

BACKGROUND

Laryngoscopy and biopsy is the standard techniques to sample and diagnose laryngeal neoplasms, but not all patients with laryngeal neoplasm are eligible for biopsy via laryngoscopy (e.g., submucosal neoplasms).

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic yield of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) for submucosal laryngeal neoplasms with unsatisfactory laryngoscopy and biopsy results.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 24 patients with unsatisfactory laryngoscopy and biopsy results who were referred to our center for US-CNB from January 2017 to November 2021. For all enrolled patients, we assessed consistency between the laryngoscopic biopsy, US-CNB, and final results. The final results were determined from the surgical biopsy results or clinical follow-up information (at least 3 month). Differences between biopsy techniques were compared using the Fisher's exact test. A P value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (median [range] age: 60.6 [41-76] years, 20 men) were included in our study. Among the 24 patients, 12 were eligible for laryngoscopic biopsy. In total, 24 patients underwent 26 US-CNB. Two patients underwent a repeat US-CNB for conformation of a benign histological result or due to inadequate specimen collection. The results of laryngoscopic biopsy and US-CNB were compared with the final result. The overall accuracy of US-CNB for differentiating benign from malignant lesions was 95.8 % (23/24), and this procedure had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 95.2 %, 100 %, 100 %, and 75 %, respectively. The results of US-CNB are significantly better than those of laryngoscopic biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

US-CNB is a safe, effective, and feasible technique for investigating suspicious submucosal laryngeal neoplasms and can serve as a complementary method for early and timely diagnosis of those neoplasms.

Role of Voice Therapy in Adherence to Voice Rest After Office-Based Vocal Fold Procedures

Purpose Patients undergoing vocal fold procedures significantly reduce but often do not cease voice use during absolute postprocedure voice rest. We hypothesized that patients who completed preprocedure voice therapy would increase adherence to postprocedure voice rest. Method Eighty-six participants completed this prospective cohort study. Patients scheduled for office-based vocal fold procedures, 1-3 days of absolute postprocedure voice rest, and preprocedure speech-language pathology (SLP) care were recruited. SLP care consisted of either (a) multiple voice therapy sessions, (b) one counseling/therapy session, or (c) voice evaluation only. Participants reported talking and other specific voice behaviors on 100-mm visual analog scales for up to 3 days pre- and postprocedure as well as changes in overall voice use at follow-up at least 1 week postprocedure. Results Talking decreased postprocedure by 63% in the therapy group and 65% in the counseling group, both significantly more than the 35% decrease measured in the evaluation group. There were group differences in talking at baseline but not during voice rest. Coughing and throat clearing were highest in the voice evaluation group and decreased less than talking during voice rest. At follow-up, 84% of participants reported that they completed voice rest for at least as long as recommended and 39.5% reported that they never used their voices during voice rest. Participants estimated a 98% overall reduction in voice use during voice rest at follow-up. Conclusions Voice use before and after vocal fold procedures varies by participation in preprocedure voice therapy. Patients significantly decrease talking during postprocedure voice rest but are not perfectly adherent. Communicative voice use decreases more than noncommunicative voice use during voice rest. Patients may overestimate adherence to voice rest at follow-up. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16589864.

Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core-Needle Biopsy for Laryngeal and Hypopharyngeal Masses

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of ultrasound (US)-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology and core-needle biopsy (US-FNAC/CNB) for the diagnosis of laryngo-hypopharyngeal masses.

Materials and Methods

This was a single-center prospective case series. From January 2018 to June 2019, we initially enrolled 40 patients with highly suspicious laryngo-hypopharyngeal masses on laryngoscopic examinations. Of these, 28 patients with the mass involving or abutting the pre-epiglottic, paraglottic, pyriform sinus, and/or subglottic regions were finally included. These patients underwent US examinations with/without subsequent US-FNAC/CNB under local anesthesia for evaluation of the laryngo-hypopharyngeal mass.

Results

Of the 28 patients who underwent US examinations, a laryngo-hypopharyngeal mass was identified in 26 patients (92.9%). US-FNAC/CNB was performed successfully in 25 of these patients (96.2%), while the procedure failed to target the mass in 1 patient (3.8%). The performance of US caused minor subclinical hematoma in 2 patients (7.7%), but no major complications occurred. US-FNAC/CNB yielded conclusive results in 24 (96.0%) out of the 25 patients with a successful procedure, including 23 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and 1 patient with a benign mass. In one patient with atypical cells in US-FNAC, additional direct laryngoscopic biopsy (DLB) was required to confirm SCC. Among the 26 patients who received US-FNAC/CNB, the time from first visit to pathological diagnosis was 7.8 days. For 24 patients finally diagnosed with SCC, the time from first visit to the initiation of treatment was 25.2 days. The mean costs associated with US-FNAC/CNB was $272 under the Korean National Health Insurance Service System.

Conclusion

US-FNAC/CNB for a laryngo-hypopharyngeal mass is technically feasible in selected patients, providing good diagnostic performance. This technique could be used as a first-line diagnostic modality by adopting appropriate indications to avoid general anesthesia and DLB-related complications.

Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis Office versus Operating Room: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis can be treated in the office or operating room (OR). The choice of treatment is based on several factors, including patient and surgeon preference. However, there is little data to guide the decision-making. This study examines the available literature comparing operative treatment in-office versus OR.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Of 2,864 articles identified, 78 were reviewed full-length and 18 were included. Outcomes of interest were recurrence and complication rates, number of procedures, time interval between procedures, and cost.

RESULTS

Only one study compared outcomes of operative in-office to OR treatments. The weighted average complication rate for OR procedures was 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.32), n = 8, and for office procedures, 0.17 (95% CI 0.08-0.33), n = 6. The weighted average time interval between OR procedures was 10.59 months (5.83, 15.35) and for office procedures 5.40 months (3.26-7.54), n = 1. The weighted average cost of OR procedures was $10,105.22 ($5,622.51-14,587.83), n = 2 versus $2,081.00 ($1,987.64-$2,174.36), n = 1 for office procedures.

CONCLUSION

Only one study compares office to OR treatment. The overall data indicate no differences aside from cost and imply that office procedures may be more cost-effective than OR procedures. However, the heterogeneous data limits any strong comparison of outcomes between office and OR-based treatment of laryngeal papillomas. More studies to compare the two treatment settings are warranted.