Comparison of complication rates associated with stapling and traditional suture closure after total laryngectomy for advanced cancer

9Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

We conducted a retrospective, matched-cohort, case-control study to compare complication rates associated with two wound closure procedures-stapling vs. traditional hand suturing-following total laryngectomy. Our study population was made up of 42 consecutively presenting patients-38 men and 4 women, aged 34 to 92 years (mean: 60.3) whose pharyngotomies were amenable to primary closure. Of this group, 37 patients had active endolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), 2 patients had inactive endolaryngeal SCC, 2 patients had thyroid cancer, and 1 patient had been treated for chronic aspiration. A total of 26 patients (61.9%) had undergone traditional suture closure of the neopharynx (suture group) and 16 patients (38.1%) had undergone closure with a linear stapling device (staple group). Other than the fact that the patients in the staple group were significantly older than those in the suture group (median: 71.0 vs. 56.5 yr, p = 0.002), there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of comorbidities or cricopharyngeal myotomy, tracheoesophageal puncture, or neck dissection. There was a total of 8 postoperative infections-5 in the staple group (31.3%) and 3 in the suture group (11.5%)-not a statistically significant difference. Fistulas occurred in 4 staple patients (25.0%) and 6 suture patients (23.1%)-again, not statistically significant. We conclude that in appropriately selected patients, primary closure of the neopharynx can be safely and effectively achieved with a linear stapling device.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Miles, B. A., Larrison, D., & Myers, L. L. (2013). Comparison of complication rates associated with stapling and traditional suture closure after total laryngectomy for advanced cancer. Ear, Nose and Throat Journal, 92(8), 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/014556131309200815

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free