Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2019 Jun;41(6):1638-1647.
doi: 10.1002/hed.25582. Epub 2019 Jan 16.

Voice outcome after unilateral ELS type III or bilateral type II resections for T1-T2 glottic carcinoma: Results after 1 year

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Voice outcome after unilateral ELS type III or bilateral type II resections for T1-T2 glottic carcinoma: Results after 1 year

Yda van Loon et al. Head Neck. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Background: Voice outcome was assessed in patients with extended T1 and limited T2 glottic carcinoma, treated with a unilateral type III or a bilateral type II resection according to the European Laryngological Society (ELS) classification.

Methods: Objective evaluation (acoustic and aerodynamic parameters), perceptual evaluation (GRBAS), and patients' self-assessment (voice handicap index [VHI]) were performed before and 1 year after treatment. Results were evaluated according to ELS resection type and the involvement of the anterior commissure.

Results: The majority of voice parameters in all resection subgroups showed an improvement of the mean score 1 year postoperatively. Grade of dysphonia varied between 1.15 and 1.66 postoperatively and VHI score varied from 23.3 to 24.5.

Conclusion: Voice outcome after ELS unilateral type III or a bilateral type II resection for extended T1 and limited T2 glottic carcinoma is good with mild to very moderate perceptive dysphonia and low self-reported voice impairment.

Keywords: TLM; anterior commissure involvement; early glottic cancer; laser surgery; voice outcome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of the grade according to the type of resection
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of the voice handicap index (VHI) according to the type of resection

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Warner L, Dey P, Arnold D, et al. Radiotherapy versus open surgery versus endolaryngeal surgery (with or without laser) for early laryngeal squamous cell cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):CD002027. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abdurehim Y, Hua Z, Yasin Y, Xukurhan A, Imam I, Yuqin F. Transoral laser surgery versus radiotherapy: systematic review and meta‐analysis for treatment options of T1a glottic cancer. Head Neck. 2012;34(1):23‐33. - PubMed
    1. Low THH, Yeh D, Zhang T, et al. Evaluating organ preservation outcome as treatment endpoint for T1aN0 glottic cancer. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(6):1322‐1327. - PubMed
    1. Mahler V, Boysen M, Brondbo K. Radiotherapy or CO(2) laser surgery as treatment of T(1a) glottic carcinoma? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267(5):743‐750. - PubMed
    1. Schrijvers ML, Van Riel EL, Langendijk JA, et al. Higher laryngeal preservation rate after CO2 laser surgery compared with radiotherapy in T1a glottic laryngeal carcinoma. Head Neck. 2009;31(6):759‐764. - PubMed

Publication types