Aspiration Prevention Surgery under Local Anesthesia for Palliative Care in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: A Report of Two Cases

Aspiration Prevention Surgery: Clinical Factors Associated With Improvements in Oral Status Intake and Suction Frequency

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, the use of aspiration prevention surgery (APS) for the treatment of severe dysphagia has been on the rise. However, relevant clinical studies have included small samples, and the frequency of, and risk factors for postoperative complications have not been clarified. We investigated the clinical features of patients undergoing APS and whether oral-intake status and suction frequency could be reduced.

STUDY DESIGN

A case series.

SETTING

Single-institution academic center.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated medical charts generated from 2010 to 2021. The clinical characteristics of patients undergoing APS, changes in the oral-intake status (Functional Oral Intake Scale, FOIS), suction frequency before and after surgery, risk factors for postoperative complications, and factors contributing to improvements in postoperative oral-intake status were retrieved.

RESULTS

We included the data of 100 patients (median age: 65 years, 72 men). Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis was the most common primary disease (28%), and glottis closure was the most common APS (69%). Postoperatively, 78% of patients showed improvements in the FOIS score, and suction frequency decreased in 85% of cases. Postoperative complications were observed in 10 patients (10%), wound infection in 6, and bleeding in 4; all improved. Higher preoperative FOIS scores were significantly associated with postoperative complications (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

APS contributed to improving the FOIS score and helped reduce the suction frequency in most cases. APS can be performed safely with proper perioperative management, even in patients with poor preoperative general conditions and nutritional status.

Aspiration prevention surgeries: a review

BACKGROUND

Severe dysphagia can cause intractable pneumonia and lead to life-threatening conditions. Intractable aspiration can occur despite medical management for aspiration prevention. Surgical intervention is indicated for intractable aspiration to prevent potentially life-threatening complications. Since the 1970s, several surgical treatments to prevent aspiration have been reported, and various aspiration prevention surgeries have been introduced, but little is known about them or their benefits. This is a review of the types of aspiration prevention surgery, with the aim of increasing aspiration prevention surgery awareness and their clinical outcomes among medical professionals, which will guide the choices of aspiration prevention surgeries for patients with intractable aspiration.

MAIN BODY

Aspiration prevention surgeries can be categorized into three according to their approaches: removal of the larynx, altering the structure of the trachea, and closure of the larynx. Aspiration prevention surgeries to remove the larynx include total and central-part laryngectomy. Aspiration prevention surgeries to alter the structure of the trachea include tracheoesophageal diversion, laryngotracheal separation, and the tracheal flap method. Surgeries to close the larynx can be divided into supraglottic laryngeal closure, glottic laryngeal closure, and subglottic laryngeal closure. Aspiration prevention surgeries prevent aspiration and increase oral intake in 50-80% of patients. Most patients lose vocal function after aspiration prevention surgeries; however, some patients who have undergone total laryngectomy or laryngotracheal separation restored their speech function through tracheoesophageal puncture and use of voice prosthesis. Postoperative suture failure is frequent after epiglottic flap closure and total laryngectomy but rare after central-part laryngectomy, laryngotracheal separation, glottic closure, and subglottic closure. Furthermore, aspiration prevention surgeries improve the quality of life of patients and their caregivers by decreasing suctioning frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we described the history and development of aspiration prevention surgeries. Medical professionals need to continually improve their knowledge and skills to facilitate appropriate aspiration prevention surgeries according to patient condition.

Effects of Aspiration Prevention Surgery on the Dynamics of the Pharynx and Upper Esophageal Sphincter

Objective

Oral intake after aspiration prevention surgery (APS) is influenced by postoperative pharyngeal pressure and the dynamics of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES). We examined the effects of less invasive APS combined with UES relaxation techniques (laryngeal closure with cricopharyngeal myotomy [LC-CPM] and central-part laryngectomy [CPL]) on pharyngeal pressure and UES dynamics.

Study Design

Retrospective, observational study.

Setting

Single center.

Methods

We assessed the high-resolution pharyngeal manometric parameters of patients who underwent APS from 2018 to 2020. Then, we compared the effects of bilateral cricopharyngeal myotomy (combined with LC: LC-CPM group) and total cricoidectomy (CPL group) on both pharyngeal pressure and UES dynamics pre- and postoperatively.

Results

Eighteen patients (median age, 68 years; 17 men [94%]) were enrolled. Primary diseases associated with severe aspiration were neuromuscular disorders in 13, stroke in 3, and others in 2 patients. Pharyngeal swallowing pressure did not significantly change before and after APS. UES resting pressure and UES relaxation duration were significantly reduced (P < .001) and prolonged (P < .001), respectively, after APS. Only the CPL group (8 patients: median 62 years, all men) showed an increase in the velopharyngeal closure integral after APS (P < .05). More prolonged UES relaxation duration was recognized postoperatively in the CPL group (P < .01) than in the LC-CPM group.

Conclusion

Less invasive APS minimally affects pharyngeal swallowing pressure, decreases UES resting pressure, and prolongs UES relaxation duration. CPL may be more effective for postoperative UES relaxation in patients with a short UES relaxation time.