Frontiers in Surgery (Jul 2022)

Surgery for bilateral vocal fold paralysis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Kai Titulaer,
  • Peter Schlattmann,
  • Orlando Guntinas-Lichius

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.956338
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9

Abstract

Read online

ObjectivesTo determine the decannulation rate (DR) and revision surgery rate after surgery for bilateral vocal fold paralysis (BVFP).Data SourcesFive databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched for the period 1908–2020.MethodsThe systematic literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-mixed-effects model. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies (case-control, cohort, and case series) were included to assess DR and revision surgery rate after different surgical techniques for treatment of BVFP.ResultsThe search yielded 857 publications, of which 102 with 2802 patients were included. DR after different types of surgery was: arytenoid abduction (DR 0.93, 95%-confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.97), endolaryngeal arytenoidectomy (DR 0.92, 95%-CI, 0.86–0.96), external arytenoidectomy (DR 0.94; 95%-CI, 0.71–0.99), external arytenoidectomy and lateralisation (DR 0.87; 95%-CI, 0.73–0.94), laterofixation (DR 0.95; 95%-CI, 0.91–0.97), posterior cordectomy (DR 0.97, 95%-CI, 0.94–0.99), posterior cordectomy and arytenoidectomy (DR 0.98, 95%-CI, 0.93–0.99), posterior cordectomy and subtotal arytenoidectomy (DR 0.98, 95%-CI, 0.88–1.00), posterior cordotomy (DR 0.96, 95%-CI, 0.84–0.99), reinnervation (0.69, 95%-CI, 0.12–0.97), subtotal arytenoidectomy (DR 1.00, 95%-CI, 0.00–1.00) and transverse cordotomy (DR 1.0, 95%-CI, 0.00–1.00). No significant difference between subgroups for DR could be found (Q = 15.67, df = 11, p = 0.1540). The between-study heterogeneity was low (τ2 = 2.2627; τ = 1.5042; I2 = 0.0%). Studies were at high risk of bias.ConclusionBLVP is a rare disease and the study quality is insufficient. The existing studies suggest a publication bias and the literature review revealed that there is a lack of prospective controlled studies. There is a lack of standardized measures that takes into account both speech quality and respiratory function and allows adequate comparison of surgical methods.

Keywords