Radiological balloon dilatation of post-treatment benign pharyngeal strictures

Safety considerations for esophageal dilation by anesthetic type: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Esophageal dilation (ED) may be performed in the office under local anesthesia or in a procedure/operating room under general anesthesia or intravenous (IV) sedation. However, indications for type of anesthesia during these procedures have not been established. The purpose of this review is to assess outcomes of esophageal dilation performed using different types of anesthesia to assess the safety of office-based techniques.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of anesthesia techniques for ED in adults. Exclusion criteria included reviews, small case series, use of stents, diagnoses with high morbidity, and rare diseases. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases was performed for articles relating to esophageal dilation.

RESULTS

876 papers were identified of which 164 full text studies were assessed and 25 were included in the analysis using the PRISMA guidelines. Data regarding demographics, dilation technique, and adverse events were extracted. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effect models with inverse-variance weighting were fit to estimate the combined effects. There were no statistically significant differences among mortality, perforation, or bleeding based on anesthetic.

CONCLUSIONS

With office-based procedures gaining popularity in laryngology, there is a need to profile their safety. Office-based ED appears to have equivalent safety to general and IV sedation, although further research is necessary to define indications favoring office-based techniques.

Outcomes of Combined Antegrade-Retrograde Dilations for Radiation-Induced Esophageal Strictures in Head and Neck Cancer Patients

The purpose of this study is to analyze outcomes of combined antegrade-retrograde dilations (CARD). This retrospective study was conducted on 14 patients with a history of head and neck cancer, treated with radiation therapy that was complicated by either complete or near-complete esophageal stenosis. All patients had minimal oral intake and depended on a gastrostomy tube for nutrition. Swallow function before and after CARD was assessed using the Functional Oral Intake Scale, originally developed for stroke patients and applied to head and neck cancer patients. Patients undergoing CARD demonstrated a quantifiable improvement in swallow function (p = 0.007) that persisted at last known follow-up (p = 0.015) but only a minority (23.1%) achieved oral intake sufficient to obviate the need for tube feeds. Complication rates were 24% per procedure or 36% per patient, almost all complications required procedural intervention, and all complications occurred in patients with complete stenosis. Our study suggests further caution when considering CARD, careful patient selection, and close post-operative monitoring.

Affective symptoms and swallow-specific quality of life in total laryngectomy patients

Background

The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of clinically relevant affective symptoms and level of swallow‐specific quality of life (QoL) in dysphagic patients with total laryngectomy (TL) and to explore the relationship between affective symptoms and swallow‐specific QoL.

Methods

Thirty‐five TL patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). Student's t test and linear regression were used.

Results

Eight (23%) patients showed clinically relevant symptoms of anxiety, 8 (23%) of depression, and 11 (31%) showed either one. These groups had significantly lower mean MDADI scores. One‐point increase in HADS‐anxiety or HADS‐depression subscale score corresponds with a decrease of 2.7 or 3.0 points, on average, respectively, of the MDADI total score.

Conclusions

Clinically relevant affective symptoms were present in approximately one‐third of the TL patients. These preliminary results show that increased affective symptom scores correlate with a decreased swallow‐specific QoL.

Endoscopic balloon dilatation for pharyngo-upper esophageal stricture after treatment of head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Dysphagia caused by pharyngo-upper esophageal stricture is a complication of treatment for head and neck cancer. Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is in widespread use as an effective and safe treatment for stricture in many areas of the gastrointestinal tract. In the present study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of EBD for pharyngo-upper esophageal strictures that developed after treatment for head and neck cancer.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2013, the medical records and endoscopic findings of 19 consecutive patients with pharyngo-upper esophageal strictures occurring after surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer were retrospectively examined.

RESULTS

Mean number of EBD sessions per patient was 6.6 (1-30), and mean maximum diameter of dilation was 15.8 (11-20) mm. Technical success was achieved in 16 of 19 (84.2%) patients, and only two major complications (bleeding and pha ryngeal edema) occurred in a total of 125 dilatation sessions (1.6%). Regarding the influence of chemoradiotherapy on the outcome of EBD, patients who had undergone chemoradiotherapy plus surgery experienced significantly more restenosis during the follow-up period compared to those who had undergone surgery alone (50% vs 0%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective analysis demonstrated the efficacy and safety of exclusive EBD for pharyngo-upper esophageal strictures occurring after treatment for head and neck cancer, indicating that the therapeutic application of EBD could be extended to such strictures. Patients who underwent chemoradiotherapy and surgery experienced more restenosis; hence, such patients should be carefully followed up after EBD treatment.

Prevention and management of treatment-induced pharyngo-oesophageal stricture

Pharyngo-oesophageal stricture (PES) is a serious complication that occurs in up to a third of patients treated with external beam radiotherapy or combined chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. This entity is under-reported and as a result, our understanding of the pathophysiology and prevention of this complication is restricted. This Review presents the knowledge so far on radiation-related and non-radiation-related risk factors for PES, including tumour stage and subsite, patient age, and comorbidities. The interventions to decrease this toxicity are discussed, including early detection of PES, initiation of an oral diet, and protection of swallowing structures from high-dose radiation. We discuss various treatment options, including swallowing exercises and manoeuvres, endoscopic dilatations, and for advanced cases, oesophageal reconstruction. Study of the subset of patients who develop this toxicity and early recognition and intervention of this pathological change in future trials will help to optimise treatment of these patients.

Functional results of pharyngo-laryngectomy and total laryngectomy: a comparison

Objective:

To compare the key functional results (regarding swallowing and voice rehabilitation) in patients treated by pharyngo-laryngectomy with flap reconstruction, versus standard, wide-field, total laryngectomy.

Method:

We studied 97 patients who had undergone total laryngectomy and pharyngo-laryngectomy with flap reconstruction. The main outcome measures were swallowing (i.e. solid food, soft diet, fluid or enteral feeding) and fluent voice development.

Results:

There were 79 men and 18 women, with follow up of one to 19 years. Voice (p = 0.037) and swallowing (p = 0.041) results were significantly worse after circumferential pharyngo-laryngectomy than after non-circumferential pharyngo-laryngectomy. There was no significant difference in voice (p = 0.23) or swallowing (p = 0.655) results, comparing total laryngectomy and non-circumferential pharyngo-laryngectomy. The presence of a post-operative fistula significantly influenced voice (p = 0.001) and swallowing (p = 0.009) outcomes.

Conclusion:

The additional measures involved in pharyngo-laryngectomy do not confer any functional disadvantage, compared with total laryngectomy, but only if the procedure is non-circumferential. Functional results of circumferential pharyngo-laryngectomy are worse than those of both non-circumferential pharyngo-laryngectomy and total laryngectomy. If oncologically possible and safe, it is better to keep a pharyngo-laryngectomy non-circumferential.