Evidence-Based Clinical Practice in Otolaryngology 2012

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice in Otolaryngology
Contributors
GUEST EDITOR
TIMOTHY L. SMITH, MD, MPH, FACS

Professor; Director, Clinical Research; Director, Oregon Sinus Center at OHSU; Rhinology
and Endoscopic Sinus-Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and
Neck Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
AUTHORS
M.L. BARNES, FRCS-ORL(ED), MD

Specialist Registrar, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom
PETE S. BATRA, MD, FACS

Associate Professor, Co-Director, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck
Surgery; Comprehensive Skull Base Program, University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center, Dallas, Texas
SCOTT E. BEVANS, MD
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Madigan Healthcare System, Tacoma,
Washington
DANIEL E. CANNON, MD
Otolaryngology Resident, Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences,
Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
JAIME I. CHANG, MD
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle,
Washington
JUSTIN K. CHAU, MD
Clinical Assistant Professor, Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, University
of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
JOHN J.W. CHO, MD

Fellow, Paparella Ear Head & Neck Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota
JOHN M. DELGAUDIO, MD
Professor and Vice Chair, Residency Program Director, Chief of Rhinology and Sinus
Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
DIETER K. FRITZ, MD
Resident, Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
MITCHELL R. GORE
Fellow, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
iv Contributors
NEIL D. GROSS, MD, FACS

Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon
Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
DANA M. HARTL, MD, PhD

Specialist, Department of Head and Neck Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif,
France
RICHARD J. HARVEY, MD
Associate Professor, University of New South Wales & St Vincent’s Hospitals and
Macquarie University, Darlinghurst, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
STACEY L. ISHMAN, MD, MPH

Director, Center for Snoring & Sleep Surgery; Assistant Professor, Division of Pulmonary
and Critical Care Medicine, Departments of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery,
Pediatrics & Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
SELENA LIAO, MD
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Sciences
University, Portland, Oregon
MICHAEL LUPA, MD
Rhinology Fellow Emory, Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University, Atlanta,
Georgia
RODRIGO MARTINEZ-MONEDERO, MD, PhD

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
ALBERT L. MERATI, MD, FACS

Professor and Chief of Laryngology, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck
Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
STEPHANIE MISONO, MD, MPH

Assistant Professor, Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
VIKASH K. MODI, MD, FAAP

Assistant Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Pediatric
Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York,
New York
MARCUS M. MONROE, MD
Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science
University, Portland, Oregon
ANH T. NGUYEN-HUYNH, MD, PhD

Assistant Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon
Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
JOHN K. NIPARKO, MD
George T. Nager Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery,
Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore,
Maryland
Contributors v
KARIN P.Q. OOMEN, MD, PhD

Fellow, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Pediatric Otolaryngology-
Head & Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
ROUNAK B. RAWAL
Medical Student, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of
JOHN S. RHEE, MD, MPH

Professor and Chairman, Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences,
Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
LUKE RUDMIK, MD
Rhinology and Endoscopic Sinus - Skull Base Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology–Head
and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada
RODNEY J. SCHLOSSER, MD, FAAOA

Professor, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina
and Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina
SETH R. SCHWARTZ, MD, MPH

Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle,
Washington
YEVGENIY R. SEMENOV, MA
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns
Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
MAISIE SHINDO, MD
Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and
Sciences University, Portland, Oregon
TIMOTHY L. SMITH, MD, MPH

Professor; Director, Clinical Research; Director, Oregon Sinus Center at OHSU; Rhinology
and Endoscopic Sinus-Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and
Neck Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
P.M. SPIELMANN, FRCS-ORL(Ed)

Specialist Registrar, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom
MICHAEL G. STEWART, MD, MPH

Professor and Chairman, Vice Dean, Associate Dean of Clinical Affairs, Department
of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York,
New York
P.S. WHITE, FRACS, FRCS(Ed), MBChB

Consultant Rhinologist, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom
SARAH K. WISE, MD, MSCR, FAAOA

Assistant Professor, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Emory University,
Atlanta, Georgia
ADAM M. ZANATION, MD
Assistant Professor, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of
Contents
Preface: Clinical Decision-Making Based on Evidence xiii

Timothy L. Smith
Evidence-Based Practice: Management of Vertigo 925

Anh T. Nguyen-Huynh
The article focuses on the evidence basis for the management of benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), the most common diagnosis of ver-
tigo in both primary care and subspecialty settings. An overview is pre-
sented, along with evidence-based clinical assessment, diagnosis, and
management. Summaries of differential diagnosis of vertigo and outcomes
are presented.
Evidence-Based Practice: Management of Adult Sensorineural Hearing Loss 941

Justin K. Chau, John J.W. Cho, and Dieter K. Fritz
Sensorineural hearing loss is a complex disease state influenced by genet-
ics, age, noise, and many other factors. This article reviews our current
knowledge regarding the causes of sensorineural hearing loss and reviews
the more challenging clinical presentations of sensorineural hearing loss.
We have reviewed the latest medical literature in an attempt to provide
an evidence-based strategy for the assessment and management of sud-
den sensorineural hearing loss, rapidly progressive sensorineural hearing
loss, and asymmetric/unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.
Cochlear Implants: Clinical and Societal Outcomes 959

Yevgeniy R. Semenov, Rodrigo Martinez-Monedero, and John K. Niparko
Over the past 30 years, hearing care clinicians have increasingly relied on
cochlear implants to restore auditory sensitivity in selected patients with
advanced sensorineural hearing loss. This article examines the impact of
intervention with cochlear implantation in children and adults. The authors
report a range of clinic-based results and patient-based outcomes re-
flected in the reported literature on cochlear implants. The authors de-
scribe the basic assessment of the physiologic response to auditory
nerve stimulation; measures of receptive and productive benefit; and sur-
veys of life effects as reflected measures of quality of life, educational
attainment, and economic impact.
Evidence-Based Practice: Reflux in Sinusitis 983

Michael Lupa and John M. DelGaudio
It is now widely recognized that extraesophageal reflux (reflux reaching
structures above the upper esophageal sphincter) has a wide range of ef-
fects on the upper aerodigestive tract, as well as the lungs. The degree to
which this reflux contributes to the pathophysiology of sinusitis and other
sinonasal diseases is still not completely clear, but an increasing body of
literature supports a potential role.
viii Contents
Evidence-Based Practice: Balloon Catheter Dilation in Rhinology 993

Pete S. Batra
Balloon catheter dilation (BCD) is a treatment paradigm for surgical manage-
ment of paranasal sinus inflammatory disease. There are few robust clinical
trials evaluating the efficacy of balloon technology in chronic rhinosinusitis
(CRS). The available database largely comprises retrospective, uncontrolled
studies with insufficiently characterized patient cohorts and a lack of com-
parator groups. Thus, the current evidence base is unable to elucidate the
role and indications for BCD in the management of medically refractory
CRS. Future studies should include selected control groups, preferably
with randomization and validated outcome measures, to determine the effi-
cacy of balloon technology compared with endoscopic sinus surgery.
Epistaxis: A Contemporary Evidence Based Approach 1005

M.L. Barnes, P.M. Spielmann, and P.S. White
This article provides a contemporary management protocol for adult epi-
staxis admissions, evidence based where possible, and otherwise based
on the authors’ own experience.
Evidence-Based Practice: Postoperative Care in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery 1019

Luke Rudmik and Timothy L. Smith
Postoperative care following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for medically
refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is believed to be important to opti-
mize clinical outcomes. There is no standardized approach to postopera-
tive care and, because of the numerous reported strategies, there remains
a debate as to what constitutes the optimal postoperative care protocol.
This article reviews the evidence and describes an evidence-based ap-
proach for postoperative care following ESS for medically refractory CRS.
Evidence-Based Practice: Functional Rhinoplasty 1033

Daniel E. Cannon and John S. Rhee
The cause of nasal obstruction can often be attributed to pathologic con-
ditions of the nasal valve. The key physical examination finding in nasal
valve compromise is inspiratory collapse of the nasal sidewall. Validated
subjective and objective measures evaluating nasal obstruction exist, al-
though with weak correlation. Functional rhinoplasty encompasses the
surgical techniques used to address obstruction occurring in this area.
These techniques aim to increase the size of the nasal valve opening
and/or strengthen the lateral nasal wall and nasal ala, preventing dynamic
collapse. Much of the supporting evidence for functional rhinoplasty con-
sists of observational studies that are universally favorable.
Evidence-Based Practice: Sublingual Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis 1045

Sarah K. Wise and Rodney J. Schlosser
In this article, the authors review the current evidence regarding the public
health and economic impact of allergic rhinitis. Diagnostic methods for
allergic disease are discussed as well as certain nuances of allergy skin
testing protocols. In addition, the evidence supporting sublingual
Contents ix
immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic rhinitis is reviewed, with subsequent at-

tention to certain subgroups, such as adults and children, seasonal versus
perennial allergens, and SLIT efficacy for individual antigens. The authors
consider the evidence supporting appropriate SLIT dosing as well as the
existing data on SLIT safety.
Evidence-Based Practice: Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea 1055

Stacey L. Ishman
Diagnosis of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is most accurately obtained
with a nocturnal polysomnogram. However, limitations on availability make
alternative screening tools necessary. Nocturnal oximetry studies or nap pol-
ysomnography can be useful if positive; however, further testing is necessary
to if these tests are negative. History and physical examination have insuffi-
cient sensitivity and specificity for definitive diagnosis of pediatric OSA.
Adenotonsillectomy remains first-line therapy for pediatric SDB and obstruc-
tive sleep apnea (OSA). Additional study of limited therapies for mild OSA are
necessary to determine if these are reasonable primary methods of treatment
or if they should be reserved for children with persistent OSA.
Evidence-Based Practice: Pediatric Tonsillectomy 1071

Karin P.Q. Oomen, Vikash K. Modi, and Michael G. Stewart
Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed
in children in the United States. Indications and recommendations for peri-
operative management are multiple and may vary among clinicians. Al-
though tonsillectomy is a safe procedure, it can be associated with
morbidity. Several techniques have been developed to reduce periopera-
tive complications, but evidence of this reduction is lacking. This article
provides clinicians with evidence-based guidance on perioperative clinical
decision making and surgical technique for tonsillectomy.
Evidence-Based Practice: Evaluation and Management of Unilateral Vocal

Fold Paralysis 1083
Stephanie Misono and Albert L. Merati
Current evidence on the etiologies and presentation, evaluation, and man-
agement of unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP) is reviewed. Cross-sec-
tional imaging is appropriate in the work-up of idiopathic UVFP, but
routine use of serology is not well supported. With laryngeal electromyog-
raphy, predictors of poor prognosis for functionally meaningful recovery
include fibrillation potentials, positive sharp waves, and absent/reduced
voluntary motor unit potentials, but optimal timing remains unclear. Voice
therapy may be helpful. Injection and laryngeal framework surgery (medi-
alization thyroplasty) improve vocal quality. The vocal impact of laryngeal
reinnervation is comparable with that of medialization. Some patients may
benefit from multiple procedures.
Otolaryngology Clinic of North America: Evidence-Based Practice Management

of Hoarseness/Dysphonia 1109
Jaime I. Chang, Scott E. Bevans, and Seth R. Schwartz
This article reviews the evidence for the evaluation and management
for patients with dysphonia. The evidence behind laryngoscopy,
x Contents
laryngostroboscopy, laryngeal imaging, laryngeal electromyography, and

disease-specific questionnaires are reviewed. The evidence for manage-
ment of some of the common conditions leading to dysphonia is also re-
viewed. This article reviews the evidence for voice therapy for various
voice pathologies; medical management of dysphonia, including antibi-
otics, steroids, and antireflux therapy; and surgical management of glottic
insufficiency and some benign laryngeal masses.
Evidence-Based Practice: Endoscopic Skull Base Resection for Malignancy 1127

Rounak B. Rawal, Mitchell R. Gore, Richard J. Harvey, and Adam M. Zanation
Successful outcomes of endoscopic approaches to benign sinonasal tu-
mors have launched interest in expanding its use for sinonasal malignancy.
Because of the heterogeneity and rarity of sinonasal malignancy, evidence
for clinical outcomes of endoscopic approaches versus traditional cranio-
facial resection is low. Using the Oxford Center for Evidence-based
Medicine guidelines, we present the existing evidence comparing both
techniques for a variety of sinonasal malignancies.
Evidence-Based Practice: Management of Glottic Cancer 1143

Dana M. Hartl
The main issue in the management of glottic squamous cell carcinoma, as
for all cancers, is adequate disease control while optimizing functional out-
comes and minimizing morbidity. This is true for early-stage disease as for
advanced tumors. This article evaluates the current evidence for the diag-
nostic and pretherapeutic workup for glottic squamous cell carcinoma and
the evidence concerning different treatment options for glottic carcinoma,
from early-stage to advanced-stage disease.
Management of Well-Differentiated Thyroid Cancer 1163

Selena Liao and Maisie Shindo
This review provides an overview of current guideline recommendations
for the clinical evaluation and surgical management of well-differentiated
thyroid cancer, and further examines the evidence for controversial topics
such as the minimum degree of primary resection, the role of elective cen-
tral neck dissection, and the extent of lateral neck dissection. Well-differ-
entiated thyroid cancer comprises the majority of thyroid cancers, about
90%, and includes both papillary and follicular carcinomas. Despite con-
vergence of the medical community in establishing treatment guidelines
under the American Thyroid Association, there still remain many areas of
disagreement.
Evidence-Based Practice: Management of the Clinical Node-Negative Neck in

Early-Stage Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma 1181
Marcus M. Monroe and Neil D. Gross
This article provides a critical review of the evidence surrounding the man-
agement of the clinical node negative patient with early-stage oral cavity
squamous cell carcinoma.
Index 1195
Evidence-Based Clinical Practice in Otolaryngology xi
OTOLARYNGOLOGIC CLINICS
OF NORTH AMERICA
FORTHCOMING ISSUES RECENT ISSUES

Imaging of Head and Neck Spaces HPV and Head and Neck Cancer
Sangam Kanekar, MD, and Sara I. Pai, MD, PhD, Guest Editor
Kyle Mannion, MD, Guest Editors August 2012
Office Procedures in Laryngology Pediatric Otolaryngology: Challenges in
Milan Amin, MD, Guest Editor Multi-system Disease
Austin S. Rose, MD, Guest Editor
Complementary and Integrative
June 2012
Medicine in Otolaryngology
John Maddalozzo, MD, Edmund Pribitkin, Vestibular Schwannoma: Evidence-based
MD, and Michael Seidman, MD, Treatment
Guest Editors Fred F. Telischi, MEE, MD, and
Jacques J. Morcos, MD, Guest Editors
Endoscopic Ear Surgery
April 2012
Joao Noguiera, MD, and
Muaaz Tarabichi, MD, Guest Editors Cochlear Implants: Adult and Pediatric
J. Thomas Roland Jr, MD, and
David S. Haynes, MD, Guest Editors
February 2012
RELATED INTEREST
Evidence-based medicine in otolaryngology, part 1:
The multiple faces of evidence-based medicine,
Jennifer J. Shin, Gregory W. Randolph, Steven D. Rauch.
In: Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Volume 142, Issue 5, May 2010,
Pages 637–646.
NOW AVAILABLE FOR YOUR iPhone and iPad

Preface
Clinical Decision-Making
Ba s e d on E vid e nc e
Timothy L. Smith, MD, MPH, FACS

Guest Editor
The concept of evidence-based medicine has flourished in recent years and it seems
that clinicians, more than ever, crave evidence from the medical literature to inform
their clinical care decision-making. While it is heartening that great volumes of
evidence may exist, it is a daunting task to assimilate, critically review, prioritize, grade,
and operationalize this crucial information. This volume of Otolaryngologic Clinics
attempts to do just that.
This book examines evidence-based practices on topics of critical importance to
otolaryngologists–head and neck surgeons. The evidence has been gathered and is
presented by leaders in their respective fields. I invite you to review their findings
and recommendations and use them to the benefit of our patients.
DEDICATION
This issue is dedicated to the loving memory of my grandmother, Lila Wright (1920-
2011), who taught me that sometimes you just have to do what feels right.
Timothy L. Smith, MD, MPH, FACS

Professor
Director, Clinical Research
Director, Oregon Sinus Center at OHSU
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery
Oregon Health & Science University
3181 South West Sam Jackson Park Road, Suite 250
Portland, OR 97239, USA
E-mail address:
smithtim@ohsu.edu
Otolaryngol Clin N Am 45 (2012) xiii

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2012.06.017 oto.theclinics.com
0030-6665/12/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.
E v i d e n c e - B a s e d Pr a c t i c e
Management of Vertigo
Anh T. Nguyen-Huynh, MD, PhD
KEYWORDS
Vertigo Dizziness Evidence-based otolaryngology Vestibular
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo Otolaryngologic symptoms
KEY POINTS
The following points list the level of evidence as based on Oxford Center for Evidence-
Based Medicine.
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most common diagnosis of vertigo
(level 4).
Dix-Hallpike maneuver is the diagnostic test for posterior canal BPPV (level 1).
Supine roll test is the diagnostic test for lateral canal BPPV (level 2).
Epley maneuver is the first-line treatment for posterior canal BPPV (level 1).
Posterior semicircular canal occlusion is an effective treatment for recalcitrant posterior
canal BPPV (level 4).
Lateral canal BPPV can be treated with a variety of repositioning maneuvers (level 2).
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group.a “The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence.”
Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o55653.
a
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group—Jeremy Howick, Iain Chalmers (James
Lind Library), Paul Glasziou, Trish Greenhalgh, Carl Heneghan, Alessandro Liberati, Ivan
Moschetti, Bob Phillips, Hazel Thornton, Olive Goddard, and Mary Hodgkinson.
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
Vertigo
Vertigo is a symptom, not a disease. Effective diagnosis and management of vertigo
begin with understanding what the symptom may represent. A survey of the
members of the American Otological Society and the American Neurotology Society
revealed that 75% of respondents agreed or agreed strongly that the definition of
vertigo in clinical practice should be more precise.1 Whereas 45% of respondents
This work was supported by grants KL2RR024141 and 5R33DC008632 from the National Insti-
tutes of Health. The author has no financial interest to disclose.
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University,
3181 Sam Jackson Park Road PV01, Portland, OR 97239, USA
E-mail address: nguyanh@ohsu.edu
Otolaryngol Clin N Am 45 (2012) 925–940

0030-6665/12/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
926 Nguyen-Huynh
favored restricting vertigo to describe a sensation of spinning or turning only, 40% of

respondent favored including any sensation of movement in the definition of vertigo.
Since acute inner ear pathology typically produces a spinning sensation, the more
restrictive definition of vertigo renders it a more specific clue for a possible otologic
vestibular disorder. A narrow focus on spinning may not be sensitive to chronic or
milder inner ear pathology, however, where sensation of movement other than spin-
ning might be elicited. Even though a consensus has not been reached on the precise
definition of vertigo, it is reasonable to infer from the survey results that the over-
whelming majority of otologists would recognize vertigo as distinct from other flavors
of dizziness, such as presyncopal lightheadedness, disequilibrium, or other unsettling
sensations.2
Epidemiologic surveys showed that 20% to 30% of the population may have expe-
rienced vertigo or dizziness in their lifetime.3–6 A German national telephone health
survey followed by structured neurotologic interview identified the lifetime prevalence
of vestibular vertigo to be 7.8%, with an annual incidence of 1.5%.7 In the United
States, 1.7% of ambulatory medical care visits recorded vertigo or dizziness among
the chief complaints.8 Vertigo or dizziness also accounted for 2.5% of presentations
to US emergency department in the years 1995 to 2004.9
Vertigo is a symptom in a wide range of disorders (Table 1). The article focuses on
the evidence basis for the management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo
(BPPV), the most common diagnosis of vertigo in both primary care and subspecialty
settings.10,11
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

BPPV is a disorder of the inner ear characterized by episodes of vertigo triggered by
changes in head position.12 BPPV is thought to be caused by the presence of endo-
lymphatic debris in 1 or more semicircular canals. Direct evidence of such debris or
canaliths has been demonstrated for posterior canal BPPV.13 The presence of debris
in lateral canal BPPV has not been demonstrated directly. However, treatment of
posterior canal BPPV by repositioning the debris can lead to lateral canal BPPV. By
inference, lateral canal BPPV can also be caused by endolymphatic debris.14,15
A population-based study estimates BPPV has a life-time prevalence of 2.4% and
accounts for 8% of the individuals with moderate-to-severe dizziness or vertigo.16
Posterior canal BPPV account for about 90% of the cases, and lateral canal BPPV
accounts for about 8% of the cases, according to a review of 10 series with a total of
3342 patients.17 In rare instances, the anterior canal or multiple canals might be
involved.18
Table 1
Basic differential diagnosis of vertigo
Otological Conditions Neurological Conditions Others

Benign paroxysmal positional Migraine-associated vertigo Postural hypotension
vertigo
Vestibular neuritis/labyrinthitis Vertebrobasillar insufficiency Medication side effects
Meniere disease Demyelinating diseases Anxiety or panic disorder
Superior semicircular canal CNS lesions Cervical vertigo
dehiscence
Adapted from Bhattacharyya N, Baugh RF, Orvidas L, et al. Clinical practice guideline: benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:S57.
Management of Vertigo 927
EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL ASSESSMENT

Diagnosis of Posterior Canal BPPV
The diagnosis of BPPV affecting the posterior semicircular canal is established by
a history of episodic vertigo with changes in head position and the presence of char-
acteristic nystagmus provoked by the Dix-Hallpike test according to a guideline from
the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.12
The Dix-Hallpike test19 (Fig. 1) is generally considered the gold standard test for the
diagnosis of posterior canal BPPV in that it is the most common diagnostic criterion
required for entry into clinical trials and for inclusion of such trials in meta-anal-
yses.20,21 The Dix-Hallpike test is not truly 100% sensitive, however, since BPPV is
an intermittent condition, and variations in examiners’ technique and experience might
affect the test outcome. The sensitivity of the Dix-Hallpike test has been estimated at
48% to 88% according to a structured review of published literature.22 The same
review found that estimates for specificity are lacking. In the primary care setting,
the Dix-Hallpike test reportedly has a negative predictive value of 52% for the diag-
nosis of BPPV.10 In a different series of 95 patients diagnosed and treated for posterior
canal BPPV in a specialty clinic, 11 patients did not have a positive Dix-Hallpike on
initial examination, and 28 presented with an atypical history that did not suggest
BPPV.23 Given these considerations, the Dix-Hallpike test should be routinely per-
formed if possible in the evaluation of vertigo/dizziness. Whereas a positive test should
be considered sufficient for the diagnosis of BPPV in the clinical setting, a negative
test should not rule out BPPV completely. Repeated testing in separate occasions
may be necessary to avoid missing the diagnosis. Failure to diagnose BPPV may
lead to costly diagnostic work-up.24
Fig. 1. The Dix-Hallpike test for the diagnosis of posterior canal BPPV. The patient begins by
sitting up right with head is turned 45 toward the side to be tested (1). The patient is then
laid back to supine position with head still turned and slightly extended (2). In a positive
test, torsional nystagmus with the upper pole of the eyes beating toward the dependent
ear appears within a few seconds and disappears in less than a minute. A positive Dix-
Hallpike test indicates the presence of posterior canal BPPV in the dependent ear. (Adapted
from Fife TD, Iverson DJ, Lempert T, et al. Practice parameter: therapies for benign parox-
ysmal positional vertigo (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards
Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2008;70:2068; with
permission.)
928 Nguyen-Huynh
Diagnosis of Lateral Canal BPPV

The diagnosis of BPPV affecting the lateral semicircular canal is established with
a history of episodic vertigo with changes in head position and the presence of hori-
zontal nystagmus provoked by the supine roll test according to a guideline from the
American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.12
The supine roll test (Fig. 2) is performed by rotating the patient’s head from neutral to
one side while the patient is lying supine.25 After waiting for any nystagmus or vertigo to
subside, the test is performed to the opposite side. In a positive test, horizontal
nystagmus is observed, either beating toward the dependent ear (geotropic) or beating
away from the dependent ear (apogeotropic) on both sides. For geotropic nystagmus,
the side associated with the stronger nystagmus is likely the affected ear.26,27 For apo-
geotropic nystagmus, the side associated with the weaker nystagmus is the likely the
affected ear.28 Geotropic nystagmus is more common and suggests that the canaliths
are located in the long arm of the lateral canal far from the cupula. Apogeotropic
nystagmus is less common and suggests that the canaliths are located very close to
the cupula or possibly embedded in it. In a review of 9 series with a total of 257 patients
with lateral canal BPPV, geotropic nystagmus accounted for about 70% of the cases,
and apogeotropic nystagmus accounted for about 30% of the cases.17
The supine roll test is the most commonly accepted criterion for the diagnosis of
lateral canal BPPV in clinical trials.29–31 There is no literature on the sensitivity or spec-
ificity of this test in the diagnosis of lateral canal BPPV, partly because clinical history
alone is often not sufficient for diagnosis, and there is no other gold-standard test to
which the supine roll test can be compared.
Fig. 2. The supine roll test for the diagnosis of lateral canal BPPV. The patient begins by lying
supine with head in neutral position (1). The head is turned to the right side (2) with observa-
tion of nystagmus and then turned back to neutral (1). Then the head is turned to the left side
(3). The direction of nystagmus in each position is geotropic if it beats toward the lower ear or
ageotropic if it beats toward to upper ear. For geotropic nystagmus, the side associated with
the stronger nystagmus is likely the affected ear. For ageotropic nystagmus, the side associated
with the weaker nystagmus is the likely the affected ear. (Adapted from Fife TD, Iverson DJ,
Lempert T, et al. Practice parameter: therapies for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo
(an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American
Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2008;70:2071; with permission.)
Limitations of Diagnostic Maneuvers for BPPV

Patients with the following physical limitations may not be good candidate for Dix-
Hallpike or supine head roll test: cervical stenosis, severe kyphoscoliosis, limited
cervical range of motion, Down syndrome, severe rheumatoid arthritis, cervical radicu-
lopathies, Paget disease, ankylosing spondylitis, low back dysfunction, spinal cord
injuries, and morbid obesity.12 A power-driven, multiaxial positioning chair32 may facil-
itate testing of such patients. Alternatives to the Dix-Hallpike test for the diagnosis of
posterior canal BPPV have not been well established.33
EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICAL AND SURGICAL MANAGEMENT

Natural Remission of Vertigo in BPPV
BPPV is termed benign because it is a naturally resolving condition. In 70 patients with
posterior canal BPPV who were observed without treatment, the average time to reso-
lution of vertigo was 39 days, but it took up to 6 months in the extreme.34 In 16 patients
with geotropic variant of lateral canal BPPV who were observed without treatment, the
average time to resolution of vertigo was 16 days, and all were free of vertigo in 2.5
months.34 In 14 patients with apogeotropic variant of lateral canal BPPV, the average
time to resolution of vertigo was 13 days, and maximum time was 35 days.35 Despite
its favorable prognosis, BPPV is not an entirely benign condition, especially in the
elderly, in whom it is often unrecognized and can lead to falls.36
Repositioning Maneuvers for Posterior Canal BPPV

There are 2 effective particle repositioning methods for treatment of posterior canal
BPPV: the Epley maneuver37 (Fig. 3) and the Semont maneuver (Fig. 4).38 Both are
designed to move the endolymphatic debris from the posterior semicircular canal
into the vestibule, where it does not cause vertigo. The Epley maneuver has been
extensively studied and is recommended as the first-line treatment of posterior canal
BPPV in guidelines from both the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and
Neck Surgery and the American Academy of Neurology.12,25
A Cochrane systematic review20 included 5 randomized control trials15,39–42 of the
Epley maneuver versus placebo, other active treatment, or no treatment for a total of
292 adults diagnosed with posterior canal BPPV. Updated in 2010, the review excluded
other randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with inadequate concealment of randomiza-
tion or inadequate masking of outcome assessors. Outcome measures included reso-
lution of vertigo and conversion of a positive Dix-Hallpike test to a negative Dix-Hallpike
test. The pooled data showed a statistically significant effect in favor of the Epley
maneuver over controls. An odds ratio (OR) of 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI],
2.0–9.1) was found in favor of treatment for resolution of vertigo. An OR of 5.1 (95%
CI, 2.3–11.4) was found in favor of treatment for conversion of Dix-Hallpike test result.
In addition to the Cochrane review, 5 other meta-analyses also supported the effec-
tiveness of the Epley maneuver for the treatment of posterior canal BPPV.21,43–46
There were no serious adverse effects of treatment reported in clinical trials. Minor
side effects such as nausea, vomiting, fainting, and conversion of posterior canal
BPPV to BPPV involving other canals occurred in a 12% of treated patients.25 The
rate of canal switching after treatment of posterior canal BPPV has been reported in
the range of 6% to 7%.14,15
Almost all RCTs of the Epley maneuver have been conducted in specialty clinics.
The only RCT of the Epley maneuver conducted in primary care setting42 did not
show a statistically significant benefit for the Epley maneuver in term of symptom reso-
lution and reported lower Dix-Hallpike conversion rate than other RCTs.12 Whether the
930 Nguyen-Huynh
Fig. 3. The Epley maneuver for treatment of posterior canal BPPV. Steps (1) and (2) of the
Epley maneuver are the steps of a positive Dix-Hallpike test. After holding for 20 seconds
in position 2, the head is turned 90 toward the unaffected side (3). After holding for 20
seconds in position 3, the head is turned again 90 in the same direction to a nearly face-
down position with the body also turned to accommodate the head movement (4). After
holding for 20 seconds in position 4, the patient is brought to a sitting up position (5). The
movement of the otolith material within the labyrinth is depicted with each step, showing
how otoliths are moved from the semicircular canal to the vestibule. (Adapted from Fife
TD, Iverson DJ, Lempert T, et al. Practice parameter: therapies for benign paroxysmal posi-
tional vertigo (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee
of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2008;70:2069; with permission.)
differences are due to differences in patient populations, reporting of symptoms, or

performance of the maneuver is not clear.
There are variations to the Epley maneuver37 in clinical trials as well as in clinical
practice. For example, several RCTs did not include mastoid vibration, which was
originally recommended.15,39–41 Some RCTs maintained upright posture and limit
Fig. 4. The Semont maneuver for treatment of posterior canal BPPV. The patient begins by
sitting upright (1). For a right posterior canal BPPV, the patient’s head is turned 45 toward
the left side, and then the patient is rapidly moved to the side-lying position as depicted in
position 2. After holding for 30 seconds in position 2, the patient is then moved quickly to
the opposite side-lying position (3) without head turning or pausing in the middle. (Adapted
from Fife TD, Iverson DJ, Lempert T, et al. Practice parameter: therapies for benign paroxysmal
positional vertigo (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee
of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2008;70:2070; with permission.)
cervical motion after treatment,39,40 whereas others did not.15,41 A meta-analysis

showed postural restriction after Epley maneuver had no effect on outcome.47 There
were also differences in the number of Epley maneuvers performed in the same visit,
ranging from 1 to 5. Since the success rates among different RCTs overlap, it is likely
that these variations have little effect on the end results.20
The Semont maneuver has not been as extensively studied as the Epley maneuver,
but the available evidence also supports its effectiveness in treatment of posterior
canal BPPV. In 1 RCT involving 342 patients, the Semont maneuver achieved resolu-
tion of vertigo in 79% and 87% of treated patients at 1 hour and 24 hours after treat-
ment, respectively, whereas no sham maneuver-treated patient had resolution of
vertigo at such times.48 Other prospective studies also demonstrated the effective-
ness of the Semont maneuver over sham maneuver,49 over no treatment,50 and
over Brandt-Darroff exercises.51 There is no high-quality clinical trial comparing the
Semont and Epley maneuvers.
Surgical Treatment for Posterior Canal BPPV

In extreme circumstances, patients with intractable posterior canal BPPV that shows
no sign of spontaneous remission or response to repositioning maneuvers may require
or seek surgical treatment options. In one option, the singular nerve, which selectively
supplies the posterior semicircular canal, is identified and divided to prevent aberrant
signal generated in the canal from reaching the central nervous system (CNS).52,53 In
another option, the posterior semicircular canal is exposed in the mastoid bone,
fenestrated, and occluded to prevent the canal from generating aberrant signal.54
Table 2 summarizes the outcome of 6 retrospective case series of singular nerve
neurectomy. Ninety-six percent of patients were completely cured of BPPV in the
932
Nguyen-Huynh
Table 2
Outcome of singular nerve section for BPPV
Postoperative Postoperative Y Caloric or

Study Cases Cure of BPPV Follow-up Audio Y Hearing >10 dB ENG/VNG Absent
Epley,52 1980 11 10 2–20 mo 11 5 1? 1
Meyerhoff,69 1985 18 15 6 mo 18 3 ? ?
Silverstein and White,53 1990 58 46 6 mo–18 y 56 5 34 14
Fernandes,70 1993 7 6 ? 7 2 ? ?
Gacek and Gacek,71 2002 252 244 >1 mo 252 9 ? ?
Pournaras et al,72 2008 8 8 1 mo–9 y 8 1 ? ?
Total 344 329/344 (95.6%) 342/344 (99.4%) 25/342 (7.3%) 35/344 (13.9%) 15/35 (42.9%)
? indicates that the relevant information was not reported. In the case of Epley 1980, 1 patient was reported to have severe vestibular loss postoperatively, but it
was not specified how many patients had postoperative ENG/VNG.
Table 3
Outcome of posterior semicircular canal plugging for BPPV
Postoperative Postoperative Y Caloric or

Study Cases Cure of BPPV Follow-up Audio Y Hearing >10 dB ENG/VNG Absent
PaceBalzan and Rutka,73 1991 5 5 12–36 mo 5 1 5 3
Hawthorne and el-Naggar,74 1994 15 15 14–40 mo 15 1 8 3
Zappia,75 1996 8 8 3 wk–3 mo 8 0 1 0
Pulec,76 1997 17 17 1–13 mo 17 0 17 0
Walsh et al,77 1999 13 13 29–119 mo 13 1 13 2
Agrawal and Parnes,78 2001 44 44 6 mo–12 y 40 2 ? ?
Shaia et al,79 2006 20 20 6–64 mo 20 1 ? ?
Kisilevsky et al,80 2009 32 32 2–205 mo 32 4 23 7
Total 154 154/154 (100%) 150/154 (97.4%) 10/150 (6.7%) 67/154 (43.5%) 15/67 (22.4%)
Management of Vertigo
? indicates that the relevant information was not reported.
933
934 Nguyen-Huynh
affected canal. Seven percent sustained various degrees of postoperative hearing

loss greater than 10 dB pure tone average. In a limited number of patients, in whom
postoperative electronystagmograms (ENGs) or videonystagmograms (VNG) were
obtained, 43% showed absent or reduced caloric response in the operated ear. Given
that the caloric test measures response from the lateral semicircular canal, whereas
the surgery targets the posterior semicircular canal, the reduced vestibular function
suggests the occurrence of unintended surgical trauma or postoperative labyrinthitis.
Several authors of the case series acknowledged that singular nerve neurectomy is
a technically challenging operation.
Table 3 summarizes the outcome of retrospective case series of posterior semicir-
cular canal occlusion, showing resolution of BPPV in virtually all treated patients. All
patients were completely cured of BPPV in the affected canal. Seven percent sus-
tained various degrees of postoperative hearing loss greater than 10 dB pure tone
average. The percentage of patients exhibiting reduced caloric response after surgery
appears less with posterior canal occlusion (22%) than with singular nerve section, but
remains a significant consideration. Overall, posterior canal occlusion appears to be
a highly effective treatment option for intractable BPPV with some associated risks
to hearing and vestibular function.
Fig. 5. The Lempert roll maneuver for treatment of lateral canal BPPV. The patient begins by
lying supine with head turned 45 toward the affected side (1). The patient is then brought
a series of step-wise 90 roll away from the affected side (2, 3, 4 and 5), holding each posi-
tion for 10 to 30 seconds. From position 5, the patient returns to lying supine (6) in prepa-
ration for the rapid and simultaneous movement from the supine face up to the sitting
position (7). (Adapted from Fife TD, Iverson DJ, Lempert T, et al. Practice parameter: thera-
pies for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (an evidence-based review): report of the
Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology
2008;70:2071; with permission.)
Repositioning Maneuvers for Lateral Canal BPPV

There are 3 particle repositioning methods for treatment of lateral canal BPPV:
1. Lempert roll55 (Fig. 5)
2. Forced prolonged positioning56
3. Gufoni maneuver57 (Fig. 6)
All 3 methods are designed to move the endolymphatic debris from the lateral semi-
circular canal into the vestibule, where it does not cause vertigo.
The Lempert roll and its variations appear to be the most commonly used tech-
niques based on prospective cohorts and retrospective case series.29,30,55,58–63
Success rates ranged from 50% for the apogeotropic variant to 100% for the
geotropic variant, although the endpoints differ widely among series, and there was
no appropriate untreated or sham-treated control.
Forced prolonged positioning with the affected ear up and the unaffected ear down
can be performed either alone or following the Lempert roll. In case series,56,58,60,64,65
its success rates were 75% to 90%, but with the lack of control, the prolonged end
Fig. 6. The Gufoni maneuver for treatment of lateral canal BPPV. (A) For lateral canal BPPV
with geotropic nystagmus, the patient is taken from the sitting position (step 1) to the
straight side lying position on the unaffected side (left in this case) for 1 minute. Then
the patient’s head is quickly turned toward the ground 45 to 60 and held in position
for 2 minutes. The patient then sits up again, with the head in the same position over
the left shoulder. (B) For lateral canal BPPV with apogeotropic nystagmus, the patient is
taken from the sitting position (step 1) to the straight side lying position on the affected
side (right in this case) for 1 minute. Then the patient’s head is quickly turned toward the
ground 45 to 60 and held in position for 2 minutes. The patient then sits up again with
the head in the same position over the right shoulder. (Adapted from Fife TD, Iverson DJ,
Lempert T, et al. Practice parameter: therapies for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo
(an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American
Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2008;70:2067–74 [supplemental figure 3B]; with
permission.)
936 Nguyen-Huynh
points can be difficult to distinguish from the relatively quick natural resolution of
lateral canal BPPV.
The Gufoni maneuver is less well known, but it has garnered more support in recent
literature.57,66–68 A randomized controlled trial of 112 patients with geotropic variant of
lateral canal BPPV compared Lempert roll plus forced prolonged position with Gufoni
maneuver. The Gufoni maneuver was found to be statistically more successful than
Lampert roll plus forced prolonged position after 1 treatment (86% vs 61%).31
BOTTOM LINE: WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SHOW?
BPPV is the most common diagnosis of vertigo in both primary care and subspecialty
settings. A positive Dix-Hallpike maneuver is diagnostic for posterior canal BPPV. A
positive supine roll test is diagnostic for lateral canal BPPV. Both Dix-Hallpike
maneuver and supine roll test should be performed in the evaluation of vertigo or dizzi-
ness. Epley maneuver is the first-line treatment for posterior canal BPPV, with Semont
maneuver an alternative treatment. Posterior semicircular canal occlusion is an effec-
tive treatment for recalcitrant posterior canal BPPV, with some risks to hearing and
vestibular function. Lateral canal BPPV can be treated with Lempert roll, forced pro-
longed positioning, or Gufoni maneuver, although more controlled studies are needed
to demonstrate efficacy of treatment, since lateral canal BPPV has a quick natural
course of remission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Louis Prahl for his assistance in the preparation of the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Blakley BW, Goebel J. The meaning of the word “vertigo”. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2001;125:147–50.
2. Drachman DA, Hart CW. An approach to the dizzy patient. Neurology 1972;22:
323–34.
3. Kroenke K, Price RK. Symptoms in the community. Prevalence, classification, and
psychiatric comorbidity. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:2474–80.
4. Yardley L, Owen N, Nazareth I, et al. Prevalence and presentation of dizziness in
a general practice community sample of working age people. Br J Gen Pract
1998;48:1131–5.
5. Hannaford PC, Simpson JA, Bisset AF, et al. The prevalence of ear, nose and
throat problems in the community: results from a national cross-sectional postal
survey in Scotland. Fam Pract 2005;22:227–33.
6. Mendel B, Bergenius J, Langius-Eklöf A. Dizziness: a common, troublesome
symptom but often treatable. J Vestib Res 2010;20:391–8.
7. Neuhauser HK, von Brevern M, Radtke A, et al. Epidemiology of vestibular
vertigo: a neurotologic survey of the general population. Neurology 2005;65:
898–904.
8. Sloane PD. Dizziness in primary care. Results from the National Ambulatory
Medical Care Survey. J Fam Pract 1989;29:33–8.
9. Kerber KA, Meurer WJ, West BT, et al. Dizziness presentations in U.S. emergency
departments, 1995–2004. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:744–50.
10. Hanley K, O’Dowd T. Symptoms of vertigo in general practice: a prospective
study of diagnosis. Br J Gen Pract 2002;52:809–12.
11. Kentala E, Rauch SD. A practical assessment algorithm for diagnosis of dizzi-
ness. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;128:54–9.
12. Bhattacharyya N, Baugh RF, Orvidas L, et al. Clinical practice guideline: benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:S47–81.
13. Welling DB, Parnes LS, O’Brien B, et al. Particulate matter in the posterior semi-
circular canal. Laryngoscope 1997;107:90–4.
14. Herdman SJ, Tusa RJ. Complications of the canalith repositioning procedure.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;122:281–6.
15. Yimtae K, Srirompotong S, Srirompotong S, et al. A randomized trial of the canal-
ith repositioning procedure. Laryngoscope 2003;113:828–32.
16. von Brevern M, Radtke A, Lezius F, et al. Epidemiology of benign paroxysmal posi-
tional vertigo: a population based study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 2007;78:710–5.
17. Cakir BO, Ercan I, Cakir ZA, et al. What is the true incidence of horizontal semi-
circular canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo? Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2006;134:451–4.
18. Tomaz A, Ganança MM, Ganança CF, et al. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo:
concomitant involvement of different semicircular canals. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
2009;118:113–7.
19. Dix MR, Hallpike CS. The pathology symptomatology and diagnosis of certain
common disorders of the vestibular system. Proc R Soc Med 1952;45:341–54.
20. Hilton M, Pinder D. The Epley (canalith repositioning) manoeuvre for benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(2):CD003162.
21. Teixeira LJ, Machado JN. Maneuvers for the treatment of benign positional parox-
ysmal vertigo: a systematic review. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2006;72:130–9.
22. Halker RB, Barrs DM, Wellik KE, et al. Establishing a diagnosis of benign parox-
ysmal positional vertigo through the dix-hallpike and side-lying maneuvers: a crit-
ically appraised topic. Neurologist 2008;14:201–4.
23. Norré ME. Diagnostic problems in patients with benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo. Laryngoscope 1994;104:1385–8.
24. Li JC, Li CJ, Epley J, et al. Cost-effective management of benign positional vertigo
using canalith repositioning. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122:334–9.
25. Fife TD, Iverson DJ, Lempert T, et al. Practice parameter: therapies for benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality
Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology
2008;70:2067–74.
26. McClure JA. Horizontal canal BPV. J Otolaryngol 1985;14:30–5.
27. Pagnini P, Nuti D, Vannucchi P. Benign paroxysmal vertigo of the horizontal canal.
ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1989;51:161–70.
28. Baloh RW, Jacobson K, Honrubia V. Horizontal semicircular canal variant of
benign positional vertigo. Neurology 1993;43:2542–9.
29. Nuti D, Agus G, Barbieri MT, et al. The management of horizontal-canal parox-
ysmal positional vertigo. Acta Otolaryngol 1998;118:455–60.
30. White JA, Coale KD, Catalano PJ, et al. Diagnosis and management of lateral
semicircular canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 2005;133:278–84.
31. Casani AP, Nacci A, Dallan I, et al. Horizontal semicircular canal benign parox-
ysmal positional vertigo: effectiveness of two different methods of treatment.
Audiol Neurootol 2011;16:175–84.
32. Nakayama M, Epley JM. BPPV and variants: improved treatment results with auto-
mated, nystagmus-based repositioning. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;133:
107–12.
938 Nguyen-Huynh
33. Cohen HS. Side-lying as an alternative to the Dix-Hallpike test of the posterior
canal. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:130–4.
34. Imai T, Ito M, Takeda N, et al. Natural course of the remission of vertigo in patients
with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Neurology 2005;64:920–1.
35. Imai T, Takeda N, Ito M, et al. Natural course of positional vertigo in patients with
apogeotropic variant of horizontal canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.
Auris Nasus Larynx 2011;38:2–5.
36. Oghalai JS, Manolidis S, Barth JL, et al. Unrecognized benign paroxysmal posi-
tional vertigo in elderly patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122:630–4.
37. Epley JM. The canalith repositioning procedure: for treatment of benign parox-
ysmal positional vertigo. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1992;107:399–404.
38. Semont A, Freyss G, Vitte E. Curing the BPPV with a liberatory maneuver. Adv
Otorhinolaryngol 1988;42:290–3.
39. Lynn S, Pool A, Rose D, et al. Randomized trial of the canalith repositioning
procedure. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113:712–20.
40. Froehling DA, Bowen JM, Mohr DN, et al. The canalith repositioning procedure for
the treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: a randomized controlled
trial. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:695–700.
41. von Brevern M, Seelig T, Radtke A, et al. Short-term efficacy of Epley’s
manoeuvre: a double-blind randomised trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr
2006;77:980–2.
42. Munoz JE, Miklea JT, Howard M, et al. Canalith repositioning maneuver for benign
paroxysmal positional vertigo: randomized controlled trial in family practice. Can
Fam Physician 2007;53:1048–53.
43. López-Escámez J, González-Sánchez M, Salinero J. Meta-analysis of the treat-
ment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo by Epley and Semont maneuvers.
Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 1999;50:366–70 [in Spanish].
44. Woodworth BA, Gillespie MB, Lambert PR. The canalith repositioning procedure
for benign positional vertigo: a meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1143–6.
45. Prim-Espada MP, De Diego-Sastre JI, Pérez-Fernández E. Meta-analysis on the
efficacy of Epley’s manoeuvre in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Neurolo-
gia 2010;25:295–9 [in Spanish].
46. Helminski JO, Zee DS, Janssen I, et al. Effectiveness of particle repositioning
maneuvers in the treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: a systematic
review. Phys Ther 2010;90:663–78.
47. Devaiah AK, Andreoli S. Postmaneuver restrictions in benign paroxysmal posi-
tional vertigo: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2010;142:155–9.
48. Mandalà M, Santoro GP, Asprella Libonati G, et al. Double-blind randomized trial
on short-term efficacy of the Semont maneuver for the treatment of posterior
canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. J Neurol 2012;259(5):882–5.
49. Cohen HS, Kimball KT. Effectiveness of treatments for benign paroxysmal posi-
tional vertigo of the posterior canal. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:1034–40.
50. Salvinelli F, Casale M, Trivelli M, et al. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo:
a comparative prospective study on the efficacy of Semont’s maneuver and no
treatment strategy. Clin Ter 2003;154:7–11.
51. Soto Varela A, Bartual Magro J, Santos Pérez S, et al. Benign paroxysmal vertigo:
a comparative prospective study of the efficacy of Brandt and Daroff exercises,
Semont and Epley maneuver. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2001;122:179–83.
52. Epley JM. Singular neurectomy: hypotympanotomy approach. Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 1980;88:304–9.
53. Silverstein H, White DW. Wide surgical exposure for singular neurectomy in the
treatment of benign positional vertigo. Laryngoscope 1990;100:701–6.
54. Parnes LS, McClure JA. Posterior semicircular canal occlusion in the normal
hearing ear. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;104:52–7.
55. Lempert T, Tiel-Wilck K. A positional maneuver for treatment of horizontal-canal
benign positional vertigo. Laryngoscope 1996;106:476–8.
56. Vannucchi P, Giannoni B, Pagnini P. Treatment of horizontal semicircular canal
benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. J Vestib Res 1997;7:1–6.
57. Gufoni M, Mastrosimone L, Di Nasso F. Repositioning maneuver in benign parox-
ysmal vertigo of horizontal semicircular canal. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 1998;18:
363–7 [in Italian].
58. Appiani GC, Gagliardi M, Magliulo G. Physical treatment of horizontal canal
benign positional vertigo. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1997;254:326–8.
59. Fife TD. Recognition and management of horizontal canal benign positional
vertigo. Am J Otol 1998;19:345–51.
60. Casani AP, Vannucci G, Fattori B, et al. The treatment of horizontal canal posi-
tional vertigo: our experience in 66 cases. Laryngoscope 2002;112:172–8.
61. Tirelli G, Russolo M. 360-Degree canalith repositioning procedure for the hori-
zontal canal. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131:740–6.
62. Prokopakis EP, Chimona T, Tsagournisakis M, et al. Benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo: 10-year experience in treating 592 patients with canalith repositioning
procedure. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1667–71.
63. Escher A, Ruffieux C, Maire R. Efficacy of the barbecue manoeuvre in benign
paroxysmal vertigo of the horizontal canal. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007;264:
1239–41.
64. Chiou WY, Lee HL, Tsai SC, et al. A single therapy for all subtypes of horizontal
canal positional vertigo. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1432–5.
65. Boleas-Aguirre MS, Pérez N, Batuecas-Caletrı́o A. Bedside therapeutic experi-
ences with horizontal canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (cupulolithia-
sis). Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:1217–21.
66. Asprella Libonati G. Diagnostic and treatment strategy of lateral semicircular
canal canalolithiasis. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2005;25:277–83.
67. Appiani GC, Catania G, Gagliardi M, et al. Repositioning maneuver for the treat-
ment of the apogeotropic variant of horizontal canal benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:257–60.
68. Riggio F, Francesco R, Dispenza F, et al. Management of benign paroxysmal
positional vertigo of lateral semicircular canal by Gufoni’s manoeuvre. Am J
Otol 2009;30:106–11.
69. Meyerhoff WL. Surgical section of the posterior ampullary nerve. Laryngoscope
1985;95:933–5.
70. Fernandes CM. Singular neurectomy in South African practice. S Afr J Surg 1993;
31:79–80.
71. Gacek RR, Gacek MR. Results of singular neurectomy in the posterior ampullary
recess. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002;64:397–402.
72. Pournaras I, Kos I, Guyot JP. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: a series of
eight singular neurectomies. Acta Otolaryngol 2008;128:5–8.
73. Pace-Balzan A, Rutka JA. Non-ampullary plugging of the posterior semicircular
canal for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. J Laryngol Otol 1991;105:901–6.
74. Hawthorne M, el-Naggar M. Fenestration and occlusion of posterior semicircular
canal for patients with intractable benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.
J Laryngol Otol 1994;108:935–9.
940 Nguyen-Huynh
75. Zappia JJ. Posterior semicircular canal occlusion for benign paroxysmal posi-
tional vertigo. Am J Otol 1996;17:749–54.
76. Pulec JL. Ablation of posterior semicircular canal for benign paroxysmal posi-
tional vertigo. Ear Nose Throat J 1997;76:17–22, 24.
77. Walsh RM, Bath AP, Cullen JR, et al. Long-term results of posterior semicircular
canal occlusion for intractable benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Clin Otolar-
yngol Allied Sci 1999;24:316–23.
78. Agrawal SK, Parnes LS. Human experience with canal plugging. Ann N Y Acad
Sci 2001;942:300–5.
79. Shaia WT, Zappia JJ, Bojrab DI, et al. Success of posterior semicircular canal
occlusion and application of the dizziness handicap inventory. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2006;134:424–30.
80. Kisilevsky V, Bailie NA, Dutt SN, et al. Lessons learned from the surgical manage-
ment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: the University Health Network
experience with posterior semicircular canal occlusion surgery (1988–2006).
J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;38:212–21.
Management of Adult Sensorineural Hearing Loss
a, b a
Justin K. Chau, MD *, John J.W. Cho, MD , Dieter K. Fritz, MD
KEYWORDS
Evidence-based medicine Hearing loss, sensorineural
Hearing loss, noise-induced Hearing loss, sudden Hearing loss, unilateral
Magnetic resonance imaging Glucocorticoids Antiviral agents
KEY POINTS
The following points list the level of evidence based on the criteria of the Oxford Center for
Evidence-Based Medicine. Additional critical points are provided and points here are
expanded at the conclusion of this article.
The best current evidence for oral corticosteroid treatment of sudden sensorineural
hearing loss (SSNHL) is contradictory in outcome and does not permit a definitive treat-
ment recommendation (level 1a).
Treatment of SSNHL may be equally efficacious up to and potentially later than 10 days
after the loss of hearing (level 1b).
Transtympanic corticosteroids may be useful as either primary therapy or salvage therapy
in patients with medical comorbidities who are at risk of serious adverse effects from oral
corticosteroid administration (level 1b).
There is insufficient evidence to recommend antiviral therapy as primary or steroid adjunc-
tive therapy in patients with SSNHL (level 1a).
There is limited evidence to suggest that primary hyperbaric oxygen therapy improves
hearing in patients with idiopathic SSNHL and no evidence of a functionally significant
improvement (level 1a).
OVERVIEW
Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) is a complex disease influenced by interactions

between multiple internal and external causative factors. Genetics and age-related
hearing changes may predetermine a patient’s hearing throughout their lifetime, and
Faculty disclosure/conflict of interest: The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or

conflicts of interest to disclose.
a
Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, 1403 29th Street
NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada; b Paparella Ear Head & Neck Institute, Suite 200, 701
25th Ave South, Minneapolis, MN 55454, Minnesota
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: justin.chau@gmail.com

942 Chau et al
any potential hearing changes over time may be accelerated by numerous external
factors. This relationship becomes particularly complex if the patient’s genetic
makeup predisposes that individual to a hearing vulnerability from external influences
such as chronic exposure to traumatic levels of noise or from the use of ototoxic
pharmaceuticals.
The complexity of the diagnostic evaluation and potential treatment options for
SNHL has increased because of multiple considerations. There is a downward trend
in the presenting age and an increasing severity of hearing loss in patients from
first-world (industrialized) nations.1 Patterns of hearing loss have changed in relation
to noise exposure because of various occupational hazards such as heavy industrial
noise and firearms use in military and police occupations. Clinicians involved in the
management of critically ill and complex medical patients are aware of the impact
that pharmaceutical therapy for multisystem disease may have on hearing. Patients
who have immigrated from developing countries may present with hearing loss
caused by exposure to rare pathogens such as Lassa fever2 or with a chronic otitis
media complicated by a lack of primary care or access to an otolaryngologist in their
country of origin. Thus, it is prudent for any practicing otolaryngologist to be aware
of these and other factors that may influence their diagnostic and management
approaches for patients presenting with SNHL.
The medical literature contains thousands of research papers on SNHL, the overall
aim of which is to improve our ability as clinicians to diagnose and treat patients with
hearing loss. The challenge lies in sifting through this wealth of data and applying them
to our everyday practices, because the principles of evidence-based medicine have
become integrated into our daily clinical interaction with patients. The goal of this
article is to present the current best evidence available regarding the diagnostic
process and treatments available for the management of hearing loss as it applies
to the more controversial aspects of adult SNHL. The levels of evidence proposed
by the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine are used throughout this article.3
Causes of Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Presbycusis is the most common cause of SNHL in industrialized nations. In 2003
to 2004, the prevalence of hearing loss in the adult US population aged 20 to 69
years was 16.1% (29 million Americans), and 31% of those had a high-frequency
hearing loss. The prevalence of hearing loss was higher among the following set of
individuals4:
Men
White
Older age
Less educated
History of diabetes mellitus
History of hypertension
Greater than a 20 pack-year history of smoking
It can be expected that the prevalence and impact of hearing loss on society will
increase as the elderly proportion of the population in many industrialized nations
continues to grow.
Noise
The detrimental effect of noise on the inner ear is one of the most common causes
of permanent hearing loss. Approximately 30 million American workers are exposed
to hazardous work-related noise. Occupational and recreational exposure to firearms is
Management of Adult Sensorineural Hearing Loss 943
also a significant cause of permanent noise-induced hearing loss. Permanent damage

from firearms use in police officers was identified in a long-term study, even with the
regular use of dual hearing protection.5 Despite the increasing prevalence of hearing
loss in the general population because of noise, this resultant hearing loss
is preventable through engineering controls or with the use of regular and habitual
hearing protection.6
Heredity and environment

Hereditary and developmental factors play a key role in influencing the development of
SNHL. Multiple reviews have been published summarizing the complex role of genetics
and hearing loss.7,8 Dozens of genetic loci have been identified as the causes of
numerous syndromic and nonsyndromic hearing loss with variable inheritance pat-
terns (autosomal-dominant, autosomal-recessive, X-linked, mitochondrial). Genetic
loci have been also identified that increase the potential for permanent SNHL caused
by noise trauma or ototoxic medications such as aminoglycoside antibiotics.9 Hearing
losses caused by developmental disorders of the inner ear have also been linked to:
Spontaneous or inherited genetic abnormalities, such as complete (Michel)
aplasia
Cochlear anomalies such as a Mondini malformation, labyrinthine anomalies, and
ductal anomalies (enlarged vestibular aqueduct)
Infection
SNHL is a known complication of otologic or central nervous system infections such
as acute labyrinthitis, meningitis, or as a sequela of chronic suppurative otitis media.
Pediatric SNHL has been linked to multiple congenital infections such as toxo-
plasmosis and syphilis.10,11 Labyrinthitis ossificans and permanent SNHL is a known
sequela of bacterial meningitis.
Vascular
Vascular interruption of labyrinthine blood flow is another common suspected cause
of SNHL, typically seen in an acute fashion after a cerebrovascular accident, acute
interruption of posterior cerebral circulation,12 or as the result of a coagulopathy or
other hematologic anomaly. Several studies have examined the relationship between
sudden SNHL (SSNHL) and cardiovascular and thrombophilic risk factors.13,14
Ototoxicity
Ototoxicity is a well-established complication of drug administration. The hearing
loss can be reversible or permanent and can be accompanied by other otologic
symptoms such as tinnitus and vertigo. Cisplatin chemotherapeutic agents, amino-
glycoside antibiotics, and loop diuretics are frequently cited as the most common
medications that can damage the inner ear. Critically ill patients are at particular
risk of ototoxicity as a result of renal and hepatic compromise and the use of multiple
ototoxic agents. Ototoxicity can also occur from the instillation of ototopical drops in
the presence of a ventilation tube or tympanic membrane perforation.15
Trauma
Trauma to the ear and temporal bone are uncommon causes of SNHL. Fractures
involving the otic capsule may result in permanent SNHL, vertigo, and facial nerve
injury. Inner ear barotrauma from scuba diving or sudden and violent pressure
changes to the external and middle ear causing damage to the oval or round windows
may result in perilymph fistulization and subsequent hearing loss, tinnitus, and vertigo.
944 Chau et al
Autoimmune ear disease

Autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED) was first described in the medical literature in
1979,16 and involvement of the inner ear in autoimmune disease has since become
well established. Autoantibodies that target inner ear–specific antigens have been
identified,17 and numerous studies have confirmed the association between SNHL
and systemic autoimmune diseases such as Cogan syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis,
systemic lupus erythematosus, and Wegener granulomatosis.18
Neoplastic disease
Neoplastic disease of the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) can present with a progressive
or sudden onset of hearing loss and other otologic symptoms; vestibular schwannoma
is the most common diagnosis.19 Early identification of CPA tumors poses a chal-
lenging diagnostic dilemma for otolaryngologists, and is discussed further in this
article. Metastatic disease involving the temporal bone may also present in a similar
clinical fashion to a CPA tumor.20
Endolymphatic hydrops and central nervous system disease
Although many other causes of SNHL exist, only 2 other causes are noted here. Endo-
lymphatic hydrops is a primary otologic cause of SNHL, the cause of which remains in
dispute. The classic presentation of Ménière syndrome (tinnitus, aural fullness, hearing
loss, and peripheral vertigo) can often present as SSNHL or fluctuating SNHL affecting
1 or both ears. The diagnostic process can be challenging and prolonged before the
diagnosis is made, usually after other more acute or life-threatening causes have been
ruled out. Central nervous system disease such as cerebrovascular accidents or
multiple sclerosis can also cause varying degrees of SNHL, which can be rapidly
progressive, sudden, asymmetric, or bilateral.
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss
SSNHL remains a diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma. Many aspects of this clinical
entity are disputed in the medical literature, such as the definition of the syndrome,
cause and clinical investigations, therapeutic interventions, and spontaneous rate
of recovery. SSNHL is considered an otologic emergency primarily for expeditious
treatment with corticosteroids as soon as possible after the onset of hearing loss.
However, both the use of corticosteroids for sudden hearing loss and its status as
an otologic emergency are under dispute.21
SSNHL is characterized by a rapid deterioration in hearing over seconds to days,
with no universally accepted clinical definition. The most common definition in the
literature is as defined by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communica-
tions Disorder: an SNHL of 30 dB or more across at least 3 contiguous frequencies
occurring within 72 hours.22 Regional global variations in SSNHL definition exist,
and numerous other criteria have been used for defining SSNHL in the literature.
The incidence of SSNHL has been estimated by Byl23 to range between 5 and 20
cases per 100,000 persons per year, but some consider this estimate to be lower
than the actual number of cases because it is suspected that many cases of SSNHL
resolve spontaneously before presentation to a hospital or physician. Most cases
of SSNHL are unilateral, with bilateral involvement uncommon and simultaneous bilat-
eral involvement rare. Factors that may influence the prognosis for hearing recovery
include the age of the patient, severity and type of hearing loss, time between hearing
loss onset and treatment, and presence of vertigo.
The cause of SSNHL was reviewed by the senior author.24 The identifiable
suspected causes included infectious disease in 12.8%, primary otologic disease
in 4.7%, temporal bone and inner ear trauma in 4.2%, vascular or hematologic causes
in 2.8%, neoplastic disease in 2.3%, and other causes in 2.2% of patients. Seventy-
one percent of patients reviewed suffered from an idiopathic SSNHL, and it is these
idiopathic cases that drive continuing research regarding sudden hearing loss.
Asymmetric/Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss

The goal of evaluation for an asymmetric SNHL (ASNHL) is to rule out a retrocochlear
cause such as vestibular schwannoma. Historically, clinicians relied on audiometric
tests to identify patients with a retrocochlear pattern of disease and follow-up with
a computed tomography (CT) scan. Advancements in technology have shifted our
diagnostic reliance onto highly sensitive and specific diagnostic imaging tests such
as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which can detect vestibular schwannomas at
an early stage of presentation and potentially reduce the morbidity of any potential
treatment. The high cost and limited availability of MRI in the past has influenced
the development of cost-effective clinical diagnostic algorithms for asymmetric hear-
ing loss evaluation. Refinements in MRI technology have allowed for more rapid
acquisition of higher-resolution imaging at a reduced per-patient cost to the health
care system. Despite these advancements, considerable debate continues regarding
multiple factors such as the appropriate audiometric thresholds that should trigger
radiographic evaluation of ASNHL as well as the continuing role of screening audio-
metric tests such as evoked auditory brainstem potentials to achieve a cost-
effective evaluation.
Rapidly Progressive Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Rapidly declining or fluctuating SNHL presents in less than 1% of patients presenting
with hearing loss and is often considered synonymous with the diagnosis of an AIED.
McCabe’s original article16 reviewed 18 patients who presented with variable bilateral
audiovestibular disease that improved with oral corticosteroids and intravenous cyclo-
phosphamide. Autoimmune hearing loss is typically not as rapid as an SSNHL, but is
significantly more pronounced than would be associated with presbycusis. It is typi-
cally bilateral, asymmetric, and rapidly progressive over weeks to months.25
Multiple ear diseases have been found to have a primary immunologic cause such
as relapsing polychondritis, otosclerosis, Ménière disease, and sudden hearing loss.
The ear can also be affected by systemic autoimmune diseases such as systematic
lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome, Cogan syndrome,
Wegener granulomatosis, and systemic sclerosis.25
A comprehensive history and physical examination are vital in the evaluation of

a patient with hearing loss. The history should focus on the presence of other otologic
symptoms such as tinnitus, vertigo, otalgia, aural fullness, and otorrhea, as well as
a review of symptoms that assesses the status of the central nervous system. The
patient’s past medical history, family history, medication profile, and social history
should be taken into consideration. Known causative causes for hearing loss should
be reviewed and thoroughly evaluated if identified as potential risk factors on history
and physical examination.
The diagnostic evaluation of a patient with SSNHL is a significant source of debate
in the medical literature. Diagnostic regimens for SSNHL workup vary significantly
amongst clinicians and there is no standardized battery of tests. Many centers have
reported their results using diagnostic batteries for SSNHL with varying results.26
Numerous research articles have been published examining various aspects of
946 Chau et al
SSNHL diagnosis, such as medical risk factor profiles, genetic predisposition toward
prothrombotic and hypercoagulable states, autoimmune markers, the presence of
infectious disease markers, and the usefulness of diagnostic imaging studies for diag-
nosing SSNHL.
Audiometric Testing
Standard pure tone audiometry (0.25 kHz–8 kHz) and speech discrimination testing
are not only required to provide the criteria for any hearing loss diagnosis, but the char-
acteristics of the initial audiogram provide a baseline for comparison and may also
provide prognostic value. Serial audiometric evaluations are necessary to document
recovery, monitor treatment response, screen for relapse, guide aural rehabilitation,
and rule out hearing loss in the contralateral ear. If malingering is suspected, a Stenger
test should be performed to rule out pseudohypoacusis.27
The definition of ASNHL is unclear in the literature. Many investigators have tried to
validate a universal definition that can be clinically applied.28–32 Commonly cited defi-
nitions include: 15 dB or greater (0.25–8 kHz),32 15 dB or greater at 2 or more frequen-
cies or a 15% or greater difference in speech discrimination score,28 or 20 dB or
greater at 2 consecutive frequencies.29 Saliba and colleagues31 proposed a Rule
3000 after finding that an asymmetry of 15 dB or more at 3000 Hz had the highest
odds-ratio association with a positive vestibular schwannoma finding on MRI in
their retrospective study population. Gimsing30 recently concluded that a patient with a
20-dB or greater asymmetry at 2 adjacent frequencies, unilateral tinnitus, or a 15-dB
or greater asymmetry at 2 frequencies between 2 and 8 kHz on screening audiogram
yielded the best compromise between sensitivity and specificity when attempting to
rule out a vestibular schwannoma.
Auditory Brainstem Response

Auditory evoked potentials are commonly used for the detection of retrocochlear
disease in asymmetric and sudden hearing loss. MRI has been shown to be a more
sensitive diagnostic test for the detection of vestibular schwannoma than auditory
brainstem response (ABR) (88% vs 99%), particularly for tumors measuring less
than 1 cm in diameter (79%).28 For cases in which MRI is not available or contraindi-
cated, ABR may prove to be a suitable but less sensitive alternative test. Don and
colleagues33 showed improved sensitivity using stacked ABR (95%) in patients with
vestibular schwannomas measuring less than 1 cm. The use of ABR for screening ret-
rocochlear disease is also a less favorable diagnostic option from a practical stand-
point, because sufficient residual hearing thresholds (<75 dbHL) must be present for
an ABR response to be observed.
Vestibular Assessment
The presence of vertiginous symptoms with SSNHL is common and is generally
believed to be a poor prognostic factor for hearing recovery. Objective vestibular
assessment with electronystagmography (ENG) or vestibular evoked myogenic poten-
tials (VEMP) testing is not a common part of an SSNHL test battery but may be useful
in predicting the prognosis for hearing recovery. Korres and colleagues34 identified
a significantly higher number of abnormal ENG and VEMP results in patients with
profound hearing loss, as well as a negative correlation between the severity of
hearing loss and the likelihood of hearing recovery. These findings are similar to previ-
ously published findings in the literature.35
Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Radiologic evaluation of the CPA and internal acoustic meatus via MRI with gadoli-
nium is indicated for the identification of potentially treatable causes of unilateral
SSNHL and asymmetric hearing loss.24,28 The sensitivity and specificity of MRI with
gadolinium in the diagnosis of a vestibular schwannoma larger than 3 mm approaches
nearly 100%.28,36 Contrast-enhanced MRI can identify an abnormality in 10.7% to
57% of patients with SSNHL such as a CPA tumor, labyrinthine hemorrhage, cerebro-
vascular accident, or demyelinating process.37–40 In patients with renal compromise,
the risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis may contraindicate the use of gadolinium
(relative glomerular filtration rate [GFR], 60 mL/min; absolute GFR <30 mL/min). In
such cases, high-resolution MRI with constructive interference steady state sequence
may be performed instead.36,41
Computed Tomography
Patients who are unable to receive an MRI scan (implanted ferromagnetic materials,
claustrophobia) may undergo a CT scan with intravenous contrast of the head and
temporal bones.28 Such scans have reasonable sensitivity for lesions greater than
1.5 cm in diameter, although remain suboptimal in their diagnostic capabilities for ret-
rocochlear lesions when compared with MRI.
Laboratory Tests
The evaluation of patients with SSNHL with laboratory tests is variable. Laboratory
tests including complete blood count, electrolytes, basic metabolic panels, and eryth-
rocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) are deemed reasonable but many clinicians may
decide to forgo even these measures because of their low yield.42 There is no
evidence to support a shotgun approach to serologic testing for patients with SSNHL,
because the positive yield of such testing remains unfavorably low.43 However, when
the history and physical examination suggest a possible cause, such information
should be used to guide further specific serologic workup.
Serologic markers for metabolic disorders are commonly investigated in patients
with SSNHL. Hypercholesterolemia has been identified in 35% to 40% of patients
with idiopathic SSNHL, and hyperglycemia in 18% to 37% of patients.26,43–45 Hypo-
thyroidism is also common, with a prevalence of up to 15% in patients with
SSNHL.43,45,46 Most of these conditions have been identified on previous testing per-
formed by the primary care physician before presentation to an otolaryngologist.
Patients without a previously known diagnosis of these disorders may benefit from
a screening evaluation when presenting with SSNHL.43
Hemostatic parameters such as thrombophilic genetic polymorphisms and coagu-
lation studies have been investigated in patients with SSNHL. A higher rate of poly-
morphisms in factor V Leiden, prothrombin, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase,
and platelet GlyIIIa have been shown in patients with SSNHL,13,47,48 but our clinical
ability to identify these polymorphisms in the general population to stratify or minimize
the risk of an SSNHL event before its occurrence is not feasible. Ballesteros and
colleagues47 showed that patients with SSNHL do not have a statistically significant
difference in their coagulation profile compared with controls, suggesting that coagu-
lation studies such as prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and
coagulation factors are of little diagnostic value in the clinical evaluation of SSNHL
unless warranted by evidence of a systemic process by a comprehensive history
and physical examination. Thus, the usefulness of routine evaluation of hemostatic
948 Chau et al
parameters in SSNHL remains unlikely to provide significant clinical information that

affects the incidence, therapy, or prognosis.
Infectious Diseases
Tests to identify possible infectious causes for SSNHL have been proposed in
numerous diagnostic algorithms.24 Numerous studies have attempted to associate
a viral cause with SSNHL. Influenza B49 and enterovirus50 have been shown to have
higher rates of seroconversion in patients with SSNHL in some studies. Other studies
have failed to show an association between SSNHL and human herpes simplex
virus,50,51 varicella zoster,50,51 cytomegalovirus,51 influenza A1/A3,49 parainfluenza
viruses 1, 2, and 3,49 enterovirus,52 cytomegalovirus,52 Epstein-Barr virus,52 hepatitis
C,26 adenovirus,49,53 rubella,49,53 and respiratory syncytial virus.49,53 There is currently
little evidence to support the use of routine shotgun screening for a viral cause using
polymerase chain reaction or preconvalescent and postconvalescent immunoglobulin
titers in the workup of SSNHL. Convincing evidence of a causal relationship between
a viral infection and SSNHL is lacking, and these investigations have not been shown
to make a significant difference in guiding treatment or providing a benefit to patient
outcomes.
Screening tests for nonviral infectious should be performed if a patient’s history and
physical examination are suggestive of an infectious cause. Hearing loss caused by
Lyme disease rarely presents without other clinical symptoms, thus patients with
history of exposure and positive clinical findings should be considered for serologic
testing.54 Confirmation of Borrelia infection can be performed by enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing or a serum immunoblot test, which is more
specific than ELISA for anti-Borrelia burgdorferi antibodies.41 If the possibility of
congenital or latent syphilis is suspected, then screening should be performed with
serum fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption or microhemagglutination-Trepo-
nema pallidum testing.55
Autoimmune Inner Ear Disease

Serologic markers for autoimmune disease are often ordered during the workup of
sudden and rapidly progressive or fluctuating SNHL. Increase of the ESR is commonly
seen in patients with SSNHL, although recent studies refute the prognostic usefulness
of this marker.43,56–58 Multiple studies have examined the relationship between
SSNHL and various systemic autoimmune markers including antinuclear antibodies,
rheumatoid factor, and anticardiolipin antibodies, all of which have been shown to
be increased in patients with SSNHL.43,58,59 Increased levels of antiphosphatidylser-
ine antibodies60 and antiendothelial cell autoantibodies59 as well as a decrease
in tumor necrosis factor a levels58 and T-helper cell populations61 have been shown
in patients with SSNHL. All of these tests lack specificity for the diagnosis of an
autoimmune-mediated SNHL, and the results are often clinically unhelpful because
there is no identifiable positive association between the increase of a nonspecific
inflammatory marker and a positive response to corticosteroid treatment of SSNHL
in the medical literature.
Researchers have also investigated antibody responses to specific inner ear
proteins. The 68-kDa antigen suspected to be heat shock protein 70 (hsp70) and its
relationship with AIED has been researched extensively. Heat shock proteins are
commonly expressed in multiple body tissues and in both healthy individuals and
various disease states, thus limiting its diagnostic value in AIED.58,62 Other potential
inner ear antigens include cochlin,63 b-tectorin,63 choline transporterlike protein 2,64
and myelin protein Po.65 Routine testing for these antigens is not recommended,
because the role of these inner ear antigens in AIED remains unclear.
EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT
Management of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Oral corticosteroids
Although oral steroids are considered the gold standard in the treatment of SSNHL,
their usefulness is a source of significant debate. Some consider that the first and
best evidence for their use comes from a study by Wilson and colleagues,66 which
resulted in a statistically significantly greater rate of SSNHL recovery than oral
placebo. Multiple placebo-controlled studies have since suggested value in the use
of oral corticosteroids for the treatment of SSNHL,66–68 but these studies have
endured several criticisms, including being underpowered, nonrandomized, retro-
spective, and containing poorly defined clinical end points. A systematic review69
and meta-analysis70 by Conlin and Parnes concluded that a statistically significant
treatment effect was no longer present when Wilson and colleagues’ data64 were
pooled with data from a randomized, controlled trial by Cinamon and colleagues,71
and a more recent Cochrane review found that these same 2 trials66,71 were of low
methodologic quality.72 Thus, the current best evidence for oral corticosteroids ob-
tained from randomized, controlled trials has been deemed to be contradictory in
outcome and does not permit a definitive treatment recommendation.72
The timing of steroid therapy in SSNHL has been equally as contentious as the type
of therapy itself. SSNHL has traditionally been considered an otologic emergency
requiring prompt initiation of therapy for maximum efficacy and best chance of hearing
recovery. A study by Huy and Sauvaget21 found that a delay in initiating treatment from
24 hours to 1 week had no effect on the final degree of hearing loss. Other studies have
also shown that the time between onset of SSNHL and initiation of corticosteroid
therapy after hearing loss does not seem to affect hearing outcomes, with 1 study sug-
gesting equal treatment efficacy 10 days or more after the onset of SSNHL.73,74
Transtympanic corticosteroids
Transtympanic corticosteroids (TTS) via injection into the middle ear have become
increasingly popular. TTS have several theoretic advantages over oral corticosteroids,
including the potential benefit of reduced systemic steroid exposure and the associ-
ated adverse effects. Animal studies have shown higher perilymph drug concentra-
tions from TTS relative to either intravenous or oral steroid administration.73,75 Three
main protocols have been reported for TTS in the treatment of SSNHL: initial or
primary therapy, adjunctive therapy with either oral or intravenous steroids, or salvage
therapy after failure of systemic corticosteroid therapy. No consensus has been
reached with respect to optimal steroid selection, because studies have been hetero-
geneous, with common usage of dexamethasone, prednisone, or methylprednisolone.
Several studies have shown the potential benefits of using TTS as a salvage
therapy.76,77 Until recently, the use of TTS in primary therapy was uncommon. An infe-
riority trial by Rauch and colleagues78 comparing TTS with oral treatment as primary
therapy concluded that TTS were not inferior to oral steroids among patients with idio-
pathic SSNHL 2 months after treatment.
A review by Vlastarakos and colleagues79 assessed the efficacy of TTS in the treat-
ment of SSNHL with respect to each of the steroid delivery methods mentioned earlier.
The study concluded that TTS seem to be effective as primary (grade A) or salvage
treatment (grade B) in SSNHL but was unable to draw a definite conclusion regarding
combination therapy because of heterogeneity among study results. It also concluded
950 Chau et al
that primary TTS was the most effective modality in terms of complete hearing
recovery, with a 34.4% cure rate, and that most complications of TTS were minor,
temporary, and conservatively managed. This conclusion was further strengthened
by a systematic review by Spear and Schwartz,80 which found that TTS was equivalent
to high-dose oral steroids, and with respect to salvage therapy offered the potential for
additional hearing recovery. Both studies cautioned readers regarding the degree of
significance of the objective hearing improvement and the percentage of patients
who may subjectively experience benefit.
Antiviral therapy
Antivirals such as acyclovir and ganciclovir have been commonly used as a treatment
adjunct with systemic corticosteroids for SSNHL therapy. A meta-analysis by Conlin
and Parnes70 determined that no significant treatment benefit was derived from treat-
ment with oral corticosteroids and an antiviral over oral corticosteroids alone, and anti-
virals did not seem to improve recovery time or provide a hearing benefit. A more
recent review has confirmed that there is insufficient evidence to recommend antiviral
therapy in addition to corticosteroids in patients with SSNHL.81 Despite the absence
of scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of antiviral therapy, antivirals remain
a common treatment adjunct across North America, likely because of the minimal
risk and cost associated with treatment.
Rheopheresis
Rheopheresis has been used as a therapeutic option for SSNHL in Europe. The goal
of therapy is to reduce acute microcirculatory impairment via plasmapheresis, which
is used to eliminate a defined spectrum of high-molecular-weight plasma proteins,
with a resultant reduction of plasma and whole blood viscosity. A recent German
review reported on 2 main large randomized controlled trials82,83 that showed equiv-
alent efficacy to standard therapy with systemic corticosteroids and hemodilution.84
These findings have been recognized by the German SSNHL guidelines, which pro-
pose similar treatments as part of a multimodality approach. Neither of these studies
was without limitations, and further research is needed to further evaluate their en-
couraging findings.
Hyperbaric oxygen
Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for the treatment of SSNHL has been studied as
either a primary therapy or as an adjunctive therapy to systemic corticosteroids with
mixed results. HBO was used as the primary therapy for SSNHL in 1 published study,
in which it was found to provide an improved hearing outcome when compared with
vasodilator therapy.85 As an adjunctive therapy, a retrospective review by Alimoglu
and colleagues86 found that combined corticosteroid/HBO therapy for SSNHL had
a higher rate of therapy response and complete recovery compared with primary
HBO, oral, or intratympanic steroid therapies. Conversely, Cekin and colleagues87
compared primary and adjunctive HBO and found no statistical benefit. A Cochrane
review in 200788 found limited evidence that HBO therapy improves hearing in patients
with idiopathic SSNHL and no evidence of a functionally significant improvement.
Management of Rapidly Progressive Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Studies have shown that corticosteroids are the only validated treatment option for
AIED with significant but variable hearing gains.89,90 Although a standard regimen of
therapy does not exist, treatment with 1 mg/kg/d for 4 weeks followed by a slow taper
over several weeks to a maintenance dose of 10 to 20 mg/d or the lowest dose that
maintains hearing has been recommended.25 Alexander and colleagues91 conducted
a study assessing corticosteroid safety in response to concerns regarding adverse

affects from long-term corticosteroid use and found that with appropriate patient
selection, monitoring, and patient education, high-dose corticosteroids were a safe
and effective long-term treatment of AIED.
The audiovestibular symptoms of AIED typically follow a waxing and waning course,
which can lead to an inability to wean off corticosteroids, or the symptoms can
become refractory to steroid treatment. Corticosteroid-sparing treatments have
been studied at length, with methotrexate showing initial promise in a retrospective
study by Sismanis and colleagues,92 but this trial was criticized for being retrospective
and uncontrolled. A single randomized, controlled trial reported that methotrexate was
no more effective than placebo in maintaining hearing improvement in patients with
AIED despite an initial response to high-dose corticosteroids.89
Treatment with cyclophosphamide as adjunctive or salvage therapy has been
described for patients who are either unresponsive to corticosteroid/methotrexate
therapy or cannot be weaned from corticosteroid therapy.16,93 Although cyclo-
phosphamide remains a therapeutic alternative for refractory or chronic symptoms,
patients may refuse therapy because of its potential toxicities such as myelosuppres-
sion, infertility, and increased risk of malignancy and elect for treatments such as
cochlear implantation once their symptoms progress from severe to profound.
Other cytotoxic and proinflammatory antagonists such as etanercept and infliximab
have been studied in the treatment of AIED. Most of these studies have been small and
have shown the agents to be no better than placebo.94,95 The studies were limited
primarily by small sample size and may have been underpowered to detect a signifi-
cant clinical difference. Therefore, larger trials are necessary to assess for potential
benefit in the treatment of AIED.
Management of Asymmetric Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Despite having serviceable hearing from their remaining good ear, adult patients with
profound ASNHL can suffer from significant hearing handicaps, including difficulties
with speech perception in the presence of noise, localization of unseen sounds, and
increased listening effort. Traditional treatment has been limited to the use of air-
conduction contralateral routing of sound (CROS) hearing aids to reduce the head
shadowing effect of monaural hearing as well as to improve speech perception. Limi-
tations of CROS aids such as social stigma related to poor cosmesis and discomfort
from occlusion of the better ear canal have led to increased interest in the potential
benefits of bone-anchored hearing aids (BAHA).
A meta-analysis in 2006 comparing the usefulness of BAHA and CROS hearing aids
found no significant improvement in auditory localization with either aid, but BAHA pro-
vided an advantage with both speech discrimination in noise and subjective auditory
abilities.96 A more recent contemporary review found that patients preferred BAHA
over CROS hearing aids and that BAHA may offer enhancements in speech perception
in noise over CROS aids.97 Both of these studies recognized that the current best
evidence regarding BAHA surgery for ASNHL suffers from several limitations, includ-
ing a paucity of prospective randomized, controlled trials, and thus the investigators
have advised clinicians to proceed with caution and await larger randomized trials.96,97
BOTTOM LINE: WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE TELL US?
Significant gains have been made in our understanding of the genetics of hearing loss
and how the interactions with our environment and other factors influence the auditory
system. These advances have yet to translate into diagnostic tests and therapies that
952 Chau et al
can effectively predict, prevent, or reverse sudden changes in hearing or delay the
effects of age and noise on hearing. Advancements in the resolution and strength of
diagnostic imaging techniques such as MRI have improved our ability to diagnose
temporal bone, inner ear, or central nervous system causes of SNHL. Research
continues toward the identification of laboratory tests that can diagnose the cause
of an SSNHL with increased sensitivity and specificity, whether it is caused by an
infectious disease or hematologic or coagulopathic disorder or is inflammatory/auto-
immune in origin. Corticosteroids are a validated treatment of hearing loss caused by
autoimmune and inflammatory disease, and also remain the primary treatment of idio-
pathic SSNHL despite the controversies regarding the effective timing, dosing, and
true efficacy of corticosteroids for these patients.
CRITICAL POINTS WITH EVIDENCE
Standard pure-tone audiometry and speech discrimination testing are essential

for diagnosing patients with hearing loss. The Stenger test can be used to rule
out pseudohypoacusis (level 1b).
No clear definition of ASNHL exists in the literature (level 4).
ABR is inferior to MRI in ruling out retrocochlear disease but can be considered if
MRI is not available or is contraindicated (level 2b).
MRI with gadolinium has a high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing poten-
tially treatable causes of ASNHL or unilateral hearing SNHL (level 2b). CT with
intravenous contrast may be used to rule out large retrocochlear lesions (>1.5 cm)
when MRI is contraindicated.
Common metabolic disturbances associated with hearing loss such as hyper-
cholesterolemia and hypothyroidism should be ruled out in previously un-
screened patients (level 3b).
The use of hemostatic parameters or coagulation studies is of little diagnostic
value in the clinical evaluation of SSNHL unless warranted by evidence of a sys-
temic process during a comprehensive history and physical examination (level 3b).
There is a lack of evidence to support the use of routine screening for a viral
cause in the workup of SSNHL (level 3b).
Screening tests for nonviral infectious causes such as Lyme disease and syphilis
should be performed in patients with a suggestive clinical history and physical
examination (level 4).
The use of systemic autoimmune markers in evaluating SSNHL, rapidly progres-
sive SNHL, or fluctuating SNHL lack specificity and do not provide prognostic
information (level 2b).
Routine testing for hsp70 and inner ear antigens is not recommended because
their role in the diagnosis and management of autoimmune ear disease is unclear
(level 2b).
The best current evidence for oral corticosteroid treatment of SSNHL is contra-
dictory in outcome and does not permit a definitive treatment recommendation
(level 1a).69,70,72
SSNHL may not be an otologic emergency (level 2b).21 Treatment may be equally
efficacious up to and potentially later than 10 days after the loss of hearing (level
1b).73,74,77
TTS may be useful as either primary therapy or salvage therapy in patients with
medical comorbidities who are at risk of serious adverse effects from oral corti-
costeroid administration (level 1b).78,79
There is insufficient evidence to recommend antiviral therapy as primary or

steroid adjunctive therapy in patients with SSNHL (level 1a).70,81
Rheolytic therapy may provide benefit for the treatment of SSNHL. Further
research is needed to further evaluate these encouraging findings (level 1a).84
There is limited evidence to suggest that primary HBO therapy improves hearing
in patients with idiopathic SSNHL and no evidence of a functionally significant
improvement (level 1a).88
Corticosteroids are the only validated treatment option for AIED (level 2b).89,90
There is limited evidence to recommend corticosteroid-sparing therapy, including
cytotoxic (methotrexate) (level 1a) and proinflammatory antagonists (etanercept/
infliximab) (level 4) in the treatment of AIED as a primary therapy.16,89,93–95
BAHA surgery may be preferred by patients over CROS hearing aids for ASNHL
and may provide improvement in speech discrimination in noisy environments
(level 3a).96,97
REFERENCES
1. Shargorodsky J, Curhan S, Curhan G, et al. Change in prevalence of hearing loss

in US adolescents. JAMA 2010;304:772–8.
2. Cummins D, McCorkick JB, Bennett D, et al. Acute sensorineural deafness in
Lassa fever. JAMA 1990;264:2094–6.
3. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence.
Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2011. Available at: http://www.
cebm.net/index.aspx?o51025. Accessed November 3, 2011.
4. Agrawal Y, Platz E, Niparko J. Prevalence of hearing loss and differences
by demographic characteristics among US adults. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:
1522–30.
5. NIOSH. Centers for disease Control and Prevention – National Institute for Occu-
pational Safety and Health. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/noise.
Accessed November 3, 2011.
6. Wu C, Young Y. Ten-year longitudinal study of the effect of impulse noise expo-
sure from gunshot on inner ear function. Int J Audiol 2009;48:655–60.
7. Dror A, Avraham K. Hearing loss: mechanisms revealed by genetics and cell
biology. Annu Rev Genet 2009;43:411–37.
8. Hone S, Smith R. Genetics of hearing impairment. Semin Neonatol 2001;6:
531–41.
9. Bindu LH, Reddy PP. Genetics of aminoglycoside-induced and prelingual non-
syndromic mitochondrial hearing impairment: a review. Int J Audiol 2008;47:702–7.
10. Brown ED, Chau J, Atashband S, et al. A systematic review of neonatal toxoplas-
mosis exposure and sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
2009;73:787–92.
11. Chau J, Atashband S, Chang E, et al. A systematic review of pediatric sensori-
neural hearing loss in congenital syphilis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2009;
73:787–92.
12. Son EJ, Bang JH, Kang JG. Anterior inferior cerebellar artery infarction present-
ing with sudden hearing loss and vertigo. Laryngoscope 2007;117:556–8.
13. Capaccio P, Ottaviani F, Cuccarini V, et al. Genetic and acquired prothrombotic
risk factors and sudden hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2007;117:547–51.
14. Marcucci R, Alessandrello Liotta A, Cellai A, et al. Cardiovascular and throm-
bophilic risk factors for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. J Thromb
Haemost 2005;3:929–34.
954 Chau et al
15. Haynes D, Rutka J, Hawke M, et al. Ototoxicity of ototopical drops–an update.

Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2007;40:669–83.
16. McCabe BF. Autoimmune sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
1979;88:585–9.
17. Bonaguri C, Orsoni J, Zavota L, et al. Anti-68 kDa antibodies in autoimmune
sensorineural hearing loss. Autoimmunity 2007;40:73–8.
18. Mathews J, Kumar BN. Autoimmune sensorineural hearing loss [review]. Clin
Otolaryngol 2003;28:479–88.
19. Swartz JD. Lesions of the cerebellopontine angle and internal auditory canal:
diagnosis and differential diagnosis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2004;25:332–52.
20. Cureoglu S, Tulunay O, Ferlito A, et al. Otologic manifestations of metastatic
tumors to the temporal bone. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124:1117–23.
21. Huy PT, Sauvaget E. Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss is not an oto-
logic emergency. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:896–902.
22. NIDCD. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.
Available at http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/Pages/sudden.aspx. Accessed
November 3, 2011.
23. Byl FM. Sudden hearing loss: eight years’ experience and suggested prognostic
table. Laryngoscope 1984;94:647–61.
24. Chau J, Lin JR, Atashband S, et al. Systematic review of the evidence for the
etiology of adult sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2010;120:
1011–21.
25. Bovo R, Aimoni C, Martini A. Immune-mediated inner ear disease. Acta Otolar-
yngol 2006;126:1012–21.
26. Cadoni G, Scipione S, Ippolito S, et al. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss:
our experience in diagnosis, treatment and outcome. J Otolaryngol 2005;34:
395–400.
27. Durmaz A, Karahatay S, Satar B, et al. Efficiency of Stenger test in confirming
profound, unilateral pseudohypacusis. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123(8):840–4.
28. Cueva R. Auditory brainstem response versus magnetic resonance imaging for
the evaluation of asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2004;
114:1686–92.
29. Dawes PJ, Jeannon JP. Audit of regional screening guidelines for vestibular
schwannoma. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112(9):860–4.
30. Gimsing S. Vestibular schwannoma: when to look at it? J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:
258–64.
31. Saliba I, Bergeron M, Martineau G, et al. Rule 3,000: a more reliable precursor to
perceive vestibular schwannoma on MRI in screened asymmetric sensorineural
hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:207–12.
32. Sheppard IJ, Milford CA, Anslow P. MRI in the detection of acoustic neuromas–
a suggested protocol for screening. Clin Otolaryngol 1996;21:301–4.
33. Don M, Kwong B, Tanaka C, et al. The stacked ABR: a sensitive and specific
screening tool for detecting small acoustic tumors. Audiol Neurootol 2005;
10(5):274–90.
34. Korres S, Stamatiou GA, Gkoritsa E, et al. Prognosis of patients with idiopathic
sudden hearing loss: role of vestibular assessment. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:
251–7.
35. Wilson WR, Laird N, Kavesh DA. Electronystagmographic findings in idiopathic
sudden hearing loss. Am J Otol 1982;3:279–85.
36. Fortnum H, O’Neil C, Taylor R, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in
the identification of suspected acoustic neuroma: a systematic review of clinical
and cost effectiveness and natural history. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(18):
1–154.
37. Aarnisalo AA, Suoranta H, Ylikoski J. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in the
auditory pathway of patients with sudden deafness. Otol Neurotol 2004;25(3):245–9.
38. Cadoni G, Cianfoni A, Agostino S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in
sudden sensorineural hearing loss. J Otolaryngol 2006;35(5):310–6.
39. Chaimoff M, Nageris BI, Sulkes J, et al. Sudden hearing loss as a presenting
symptom of acoustic neuroma. Am J Otol 1999;20(3):157–60.
40. Sugiura M, Nakashima T, Naganawa S, et al. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss
associated with inner ear anomaly. Otol Neurotol 2005;26(2):241–6.
41. Kuhn M, Heman-Ackah SE, Shaikh JA, et al. Sudden sensorineural hearing
loss: a review of diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Trends Amplif 2011;
15(3):91–105.
42. O’Malley MR, Haynes DS. Sudden hearing loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2008;
41(3):633–49.
43. Heman-Ackah SE, Jabbour N, Huang TC. Asymmetric sudden sensorineural
hearing loss: is all this testing necessary. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;
39(5):486–90.
44. Aimoni C, Bianchini C, Borin M, et al. Diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors and
idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a case-control study. Audiol Neuro-
otol 2010;15(2):111–5.
45. Oiticica J, Bittar RS. Metabolic disorders prevalence in sudden deafness. Clinics
(Sao Paulo) 2010;65(11):1149–553.
46. Narozny W, Kuczkowski J, Mikaszewski B. Thyroid dysfunction–underestimated
but important prognostic factor in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2006;135(6):995–6.
47. Ballesteros F, Alobid I, Tassies D, et al. Is there an overlap between sudden neu-
rosensorial hearing loss and cardiovascular risk factors? Audiol Neurootol 2009;
14(3):139–45.
48. Capaccio P, Cuccarini V, Ottaviani F, et al. Prothrombotic gene mutations in
patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss and cardiovascular thrombotic
disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009;118(3):205–10.
49. Wilson WR, Veltri RW, Laird N, et al. Viral and epidemiologic studies of idiopathic
sudden hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1983;91(6):653–8.
50. Mentel R, Kaftan H, Wegner U, et al. Are enterovirus infections a co-factor in
sudden hearing loss? J Med Virol 2004;72(4):625–9.
51. Mishra B, Panda N, Singh MP, et al. Viral infections in sudden hearing loss.
Do we have enough evidence. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2005;3(3):
230–3.
52. Gross M, Wolf DG, Elidan J, et al. Enterovirus, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr
virus infection screening in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Audiol
Neurootol 2007;12(3):179–82.
53. Jaffe BF. Clinical studies in sudden deafness. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 1973;20:221–8.
54. Gagnebin J, Maire R. Infection screening in sudden and progressive idiopathic
sensorineural hearing loss: a retrospective study of 182 cases. Otol Neurotol
2002;23(2):160–2.
55. Yimtae K, Srirompotong S, Lertsukprasert K. Otosyphilis: a review of 85 cases.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136(1):67–71.
56. Chang NC, Ho KY, Kuo WR. Audiometric patterns and prognosis in sudden
sensorineural hearing loss in southern Taiwan. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2005;133(6):916–22.
956 Chau et al
57. Mattox DE, Simmons FB. Natural history of sudden sensorineural hearing loss.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1977;86:463–80.
58. Suslu N, Yilmaz T, Gursel B. Utility of anti-HSP 70, TNF-a, ESR, antinuclear anti-
body, and antiphospholipid antibodies in the diagnosis and treatment of sudden
sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2009;119(2):341–6.
59. Cadoni G, Fetoni AR, Agostino S, et al. Autoimmunity in sudden sensorineural
hearing loss: possible role of anti-endothelial cell autoantibodies. Acta Otolaryng-
ol Suppl 2002;548:30–3.
60. Bachor E, Kremmer S, Kreuzfelder E, et al. Antiphospholipid antibodies in
patients with sensorineural hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2005;
262(8):622–6.
61. Garcia Berrocal JR, Ramirez-Camacho R, Vargas JA, et al. Does the serological
testing really play a role in the diagnosis of immune-mediated inner ear disease?
Acta Otolaryngol 2002;122:243–8.
62. Soliman AM. Autoantibodies in inner ear disease. Acta Otolaryngol 1997;117(4):
501–4.
63. Tebo AE, Szankasi P, Hillman TA, et al. Antibody reactivity to heat shock protein
70 and inner ear-specific proteins in patients with idiopathic sensorineural
hearing loss. Clin Exp Immunol 2006;146:427–32.
64. Nair TS, Kozma KE, Hoefling NL, et al. Identification and characterization of choline
transporter-like protein 2, an inner ear glycoprotein of 68 and 72 KDa that is the
target of antibody-induced hearing loss. Neuroscience 2004;24:1172–9.
65. Cao MY, Dupriez VJ, Rider MH, et al. Myelin protein Po as a potential autoantigen
in autoimmune inner ear disease. FASEB J 1996;10:1635–40.
66. Wilson WR, Byl FM, Laird N. The efficacy of steroids in the treatment of idiopathic
sudden hearing loss. A double-blind clinical study. Arch Otolaryngol 1980;
106(12):772–6.
67. Chen CY, Halpin C, Rauch SD. Oral steroid treatment of sudden sensori-
neural hearing loss: a ten year retrospective analysis. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:
728–33.
68. Slattery WH, Fisher LM, Iqbal Z, et al. Oral steroid regimens for idiopathic sudden
sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132:5–10.
69. Conlin AE, Parnes LS. Treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss: I. A
systematic review. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133(6):573–81.
70. Conlin AE, Parnes LS. Treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss: II. A meta-
analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133(6):582–6.
71. Cinamon U, Bendet E, Kronenberg J. Steroids, carbogen, or placebo for sudden
hearing loss: a prospective double-blind study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001;
258(9):477–80.
72. Wei BPC, Mubiru S, O’Leary S. Steroids for idiopathic sudden sensorineural
hearing loss. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2009;(4):CD003998. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.
73. Parnes LS, Sun AH, Freeman DJ. Corticosteroid pharmacokinetics in the inner
ear fluids: an animal study followed by clinical application. Laryngoscope
1999;109(7 Pt 2):1–117.
74. Dispenza F, Amodio E, De Stefano A, et al. Treatment of sudden sensorineural
hearing loss with transtympanic injection of steroids as single therapy: a random-
ized clinical study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268:1273–8.
75. Chandrasekhar SS, Rubinstein RY, Kwartler JA, et al. Dexamethasone pharmaco-
kinetics in the inner ear: comparison of route of administration and use of facili-
tating agents. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122(4):521–8.
76. Haynes DS, O’Malley M, Cohen S, et al. Intratympanic dexamethasone for

sudden sensorineural hearing loss after failure of systemic therapy. Laryngo-
scope 2007;117:3–15.
77. Ho GM, Lin HG, Shu MT. Effectiveness of intratympanic dexamethasone injection
in sudden deafness patients as salvage treatment. Laryngoscope 2004;114:
1184–9.
78. Rauch SD, Halpin CF, Antonelli PJ, et al. Oral vs intratympanic corticosteroid
therapy for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a randomized trial.
JAMA 2011;305(20):2071–9.
79. Vlastarakos PV, Papacharalampous G, Maragoudakis P, et al. Are intra-
tympanically administered steroids effective in patients with sudden deafness?
Implications for current clinical practice. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;
269(2):363–80.
80. Spear SA, Schwartz SR. Intratympanic steroids for sudden sensorineural hearing
loss: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;145(4):534–43.
81. Shaikh JA, Roehm PC. Does addition of antiviral medication to high-dose cortico-
steroid therapy improve hearing recovery following idiopathic sudden sensori-
neural hearing loss? Laryngoscope 2011;121(11):2280–1.
82. Suckfull M. Fibrinogen and LDL apheresis in treatment of sudden hearing loss:
a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2002;360:1811–7.
83. Mosges R, Koberlein J, Heibges A, et al. Rheopheresis for idiopathic sudden
hearing loss: results from a large prospective, multicenter, randomized, con-
trolled trial. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:943–53.
84. Klingel R, Heibges A, Uygun-Kiehne S, et al. Rheopheresis for sudden sensori-
neural hearing loss. Atheroscler Suppl 2009;10:102–6.
85. Fattori B, Berrettini S, Casani A, et al. Sudden hypoacusis treated with hyperbaric
oxygen therapy: a controlled study. Ear Nose Throat J 2001;80(9):655–60.
86. Alimoglu Y, Inci E, Edizer DT, et al. Efficacy comparison of oral steroid, intra-
tympanic steroid, hyperbaric oxygen and oral steroid 1 hyperbaric oxygen
treatments in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss cases. Eur Arch
87. Cekin E, Cincik H, Ulubil SA, et al. Effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in
management of sudden hearing loss. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:609–12.
88. Bennett MH, Kertesz T, Yeung P. Hyperbaric oxygen for idiopathic sudden
sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):
CD004739.
89. Harris JP, Weisman MH, Derebery JM, et al. Treatment of corticosteroid-
responsive autoimmune inner ear disease with methotrexate: a randomized con-
trolled trial. JAMA 2003;290:1875–83.
90. Niparko JK, Wang NY, Rauch SD, et al. Serial audiometry in a clinical trial of AIED
treatment. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:908–17.
91. Alexander TH, Weisman MH, Derebery JM, et al. Safety of high-dose corticoste-
roids for the treatment of autoimmune inner ear disease. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:
443–8.
92. Sismanis A, Wise CM, Johnson GD. Methotrexate management of immune-
mediated cochleovestibular disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;116:
146–52.
93. McCabe BF. Autoimmune inner ear disease. Am J Otol 1989;10(3):196–7.
94. Cohen S, Shoup A, Weisman MH, et al. Etanercept treatment for autoimmune
inner ear disease: results of a pilot placebo-controlled study. Otol Neurotol
2005;26:903–7.
958 Chau et al
95. Liu YC, Rubin R, Sataloff RT. Treatment-refractory autoimmune sensorineural

hearing loss: response to infliximab. Ear Nose Throat J 2011;90(1):23–8.
96. Baguley DM, Bird J, Humphriss RL, et al. The evidence base for the application of
contralateral bone anchored hearing aids in acquired unilateral sensorineural
hearing loss in adults. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;31(1):6–14.
97. Bishop CE, Eby TL. The current status of audiologic rehabilitation for profound
unilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Laryngoscope 2010;120(3):552–6.
Cochlear Implants
Clinical and Societal Outcomes
Yevgeniy R. Semenov, MA, Rodrigo Martinez-Monedero, MD,

John K. Niparko, MD*
KEYWORDS
Cochlear implantation outcomes Speech perception Language development
Cost utility Quality of life Education
KEY POINTS
The primary goal of cochlear implantation in children is to facilitate comprehension and
expression through the use of spoken language.
Early educational intervention is associated with improvements in language development
after cochlear implantation.
Recent analyses show that in adults, the age at implantation carries minimal or even
statistically insignificant predictive power on postimplantation outcomes. The duration
of deafness and preoperative speech-perception scores have the highest predictive
power on postimplantation outcomes across the adult population.
Age-related degeneration of the spiral ganglion and progressive central auditory
dysfunction raise potential concerns about the efficacy of cochlear prostheses in the
elderly, but comparable gains in speech understanding have been reported for both
elderly and younger groups of implant recipients.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 30 years, hearing care clinicians have increasingly relied on cochlear
implants to restore auditory sensitivity in selected patients with advanced sensori-
neural hearing loss (SNHL). This article examines the impact of intervention with
cochlear implantation in children and adults. The authors report a range of clinic-
based results and patient-based outcomes reflected in the reported literature on
cochlear implants. The authors describe the basic assessment of the physiologic
No relevant disclosures.
All figures are derived from articles authored by John K. Niparko, who is the corresponding
author for this article.
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine, 601 N. Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287-0910, USA
E-mail address: jnipark@jhmi.edu

960 Semenov et al
response to auditory nerve stimulation; measures of receptive and productive benefit;

and surveys of life effects as reflected measures of quality of life, educational attain-
ment, and economic impact.
AUDITORY OUTCOMES
Auditory performance is measured at preimplant and postimplant intervals, allowing

the assessment of candidacy criteria and longitudinal tracking of the patients’ prog-
ress. Measurement variables associated with auditory testing should be standardized
as much as possible. Clinicians can choose between closed-set tests (eg, forced
choice of 1 answer from a list of 4) and open-set tests (auditory alone without context)
of words and/or sentences. Closed-set tests and sentence tests typically produce
substantially higher correct percentages than do open-set tests and tests of single
words. This difference reflects the amount of contextual information available when
word and sentence material are presented. Voice presentation can also affect
speech-perception scores,1 with live presentations typically producing higher rates
of correct responses than taped presentations.
Trends toward higher rates of open-set speech recognition with newer implant
technology and longer implant experience have prompted calls for more stringent
assessments of receptive capability. Increasing the difficulty of a speech-perception
test has the effect of limiting the ceiling effect that results from testing with simple,
everyday phrases. For the purpose of generating more meaningful comparative
data, increasing the test difficulty tends to normalize distributions across popula-
tions, thereby enabling more powerful statistical analyses of differences between
groups.
TESTS OF IMPLANT PERFORMANCE
The Minimum Speech Test Battery (MSTB) for adult cochlear implant users is a stan-
dardized set of comprehensive tests of preoperative and postoperative speech recog-
nition.2 To minimize the effects of learning and memorization, the word and sentence
tests have different lists for at least 6 testing trials. The average and range of perfor-
mance of cochlear implant users are critical to defining audiologic performance
boundaries for implant candidacy, monitor postimplantation results, and facilitate in
comparisons across implant designs and coding strategies.
The major components of the MSTB are the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) and the
Consonant/Nucleus/Consonant (CNC) test. The HINT3 provides a measure of
speech-reception thresholds for sentences in quiet and in noise. For high levels of
recognition in quiet, the background noise is filtered to match the long-term average
spectrum of the sentences. In the MSTB, the HINT sentence lists are presented at 70
dB in quiet and at a 110 dB signal-to-noise ratio (ie, noise at 60 dB). Smaller signal-to-
noise ratios (eg, 15 dB or 0 dB) may also be used to avoid ceiling effects. Normal-
hearing listeners can comprehend sentences effectively with signal-to-noise ratios
down to 3 dB, whereas implant recipients typically show degraded speech recogni-
tion when signal-to-noise ratios are lowered beyond 110 dB.
The CNC test consists of monosyllabic words with equal phonemic distribution, with
each list of words having approximately the same phonemic distribution as the English
language.4 CNC lists enable performance testing that is likely to represent daily expe-
rience with speech stimuli. These tests measure the percentage of words correctly
recognized. Revised CNC lists5 were developed to eliminate relatively uncommon
words and proper nouns. More recent observations have stressed the importance
of speech test materials that reduce contextual cues in the interest of assessing
Cochlear Implants 961
auditory performance (bottom-up processing) rather than cognitive (top-down pro-

cessing) components of speech recognition.6
Improved speech perception is the primary goal of cochlear implantation. Initial
clinical series judged implant efficacy mostly on environmental sound perception
and performance on closed-set tests, whereas greater emphasis is now placed
on measures of open-set speech comprehension. Speech-perception results from
early clinical trials have served to guide the evolution of cochlear implantation.
Clinical observations in patients with current processors indicate that for patients
with implant experience beyond 6 months, the mean score on open-set word testing
approximates 30% to 60%, with a range of 0% to 100%.7–10 Results achieved with the
most recently developed speech-processing strategies reveal mean scores more than
75% on words-in-sentence testing, although once again with a wide range of 0% to
100%. Although patients perform substantially poorer on single-word testing, these
mean scores continue to improve as the speech-processing strategy evolves.11 After
implantation, speech recognition by telephone12 and music appreciation are often
observed. Again, these benefits seem to be best achieved through more recently
developed processing strategies.
The high prevalence of SNHL among the elderly has prompted evaluations of the
benefit of cochlear implantation in this age group.10,13–16 For recipients of the cochlear
implant after the age of 65 years, open-set speech-recognition scores are not as high
as those reported in younger cohorts, potentially representing an effect of longer dura-
tion of deafness as opposed to age per se. Nonetheless, implant usage is high among
elderly recipients, with nonuse observed in few patients.
PREDICTORS OF BENEFIT IN ADULTS
The evaluation of the benefit of cochlear implantation in adults has largely focused on
measuring gains in speech perception. Assessments of speech recognition in
implanted adults offer the opportunity to develop models of benefit prediction. As
investigators identify the salient predictive factors, patients’ choices regarding candi-
dacy, device and processing strategy, and the degree of postoperative auditory reha-
bilitation necessary can be better informed. Various statistical methods have been
used to assess speech comprehension using cochlear implants. Multivariate analysis,
a statistical technique that determines the contribution of individual factors to varia-
tions in performance, is the most commonly used methodology.7,8,17–19 The following
factors have been evaluated:
Patient variables: age of onset, age of implantation, deafness duration, cause,
preoperative hearing, survival and location of spiral ganglion cells, patency of
the scala tympani, cognitive skills, personality, visual attention, motivation,
engagement, communication mode, and auditory memory.
Device variables: processor, implant, electrode geometry, electrode number,
duration and pattern of implant use, and the strategy used by the speech pro-
cessing unit.
Although the factors identified as most determinative have varied with different
study populations, the most recent analyses8,17–19 showed that age at implantation
carries minimal or even statistically insignificant predictive power on postimplantation
outcomes. Rather, it was the duration of deafness and preoperative speech percep-
tion scores that had the highest predictive power on postimplantation outcomes
across the adult population.
962 Semenov et al
The resulting models of postimplantation outcomes follow a similar mathematical

structure with a patient’s postoperative word score starting at a constant value k,
which is either increased by the addition of a term dependent on the pre–cochlear-
implant sentence score or decreased by the subtraction of a term dependent on the
duration of deafness.
Predicted percentage of words in everyday sentences 5 k (Dur Yrs df) 1

(% words pre-CI)
where CI is cochlear implant, Dur Yrs df is duration of deafness in years from onset
and % words pre-CI is consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) monosyllabic word score
before implantation.
In addition to the previously mentioned factors, the choice of which ear to implant has
been a frequently discussed issue. Several studies, particularly the Iowa model, have
emphasized the utility of implanting the better-hearing ear. At Johns Hopkins Hospital,
the authors have advocated the implantation of the poorer-hearing ear. Although
greater data are needed, the authors’ studies thus far reveal no significant difference
in implant performance based on whether the better- or worse-hearing ear is implanted.
Fig. 1 shows a regression plot of the predicted postoperative word scores for each
patient as modeled by the Johns Hopkins (implant poorer ear) and Iowa formulas
(better ear).17 There are virtually identical scores predicted from each patient’s duration
of deafness and preoperative sentence recognition scores. These data suggest
that results obtained through cochlear implantation of the poorer-hearing ear are
Fig. 1. Regression plot of the predicted postoperative word scores for each patient as
modeled by the Johns Hopkins (implant poorer ear) and Iowa formulas (better ear). There
are virtually identical scores predicted from each patient’s duration of deafness and preoper-
ative sentence-recognition scores. These data suggest that results obtained through cochlear
implantation of the poorer-hearing ear are statistically equivalent to results obtained
through implantation of the better-hearing ear. The similarity of results obtained through
both methods suggests that implantation may have a beneficial effect on central auditory
pathway development regardless of sidedness. (Adapted from Friedland DR, Venick HS,
Niparko JK. Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing
on predicted postoperative performance. Otol Neurotol 2003;24(4):582–9; with permission.)
statistically equivalent to results obtained through implantation of the better-hearing

ear. The similarity of results obtained through both methods suggests that implantation
may have a beneficial effect on central auditory pathway development regardless of the
choice of ear to be implanted, a finding which was later confirmed by Francis and
colleagues20 (2005).
Another variable that influences speech perception is technological sophistication
of the implanted device. Improvements in speech perception have been associated
with generational improvements in signal processing strategies, speech processors,
and electrode arrays,21,22 but may reflect clinical trends in patient selection as well
as technological advances.
IMPLANT PERFORMANCE IN CHILDREN
The era of pediatric cochlear implantation began with House-3M single-channel implants
(a collaboration between House Ear Institute and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company) in 1980. Investigational trials with multiple-channel cochlear implants began
with adolescents (aged 10 through 17 years) in 1985 and with children (aged 2 through
9 years) in 1986. Implantation of infants and toddlers younger than 2 years of age began
in 1995.23 Although clinical experience with cochlear implantation is considerably shorter
in children than in adults, a large body of evidence is now available (reviewed by24,25).
AUDITORY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS FOR CHILDREN
Auditory performance in children is assessed with a battery of audiological tests that

can address the wide range of perceptual skills exhibited by children with severe to
profound sensorineural hearing loss. Although substantial auditory gains are apparent
in implanted children, the range of quantifiable improvement varies widely between
children and depends heavily on the duration of use of the device as well as preoper-
ative variables. For this reason, testing should survey a range of levels of speech
recognition, including simple awareness of sound, pattern perception (discrimination
of time and stress differences of utterance), closed-set (multiple choice) speech
recognition, and open-set (auditory only) recognition.
Methodological variables must be considered when attempting to objectively rate
the effect of cochlear implants on the development of speech perception in children
who are deaf. There are obvious difficulties inherent in objectively rating communica-
tion competence in very young children; older children may exhibit advantages by
virtue of greater familiarity with a test’s context, independent of perceptual skills.1
Objective assessment also mandates a structured setting. Given its unfamiliarity, chil-
dren may not be in an optimal frame of mind in cooperating with testing. Investigators
must also account for discontinuity in the age-appropriate measures necessary for
longitudinal assessment.26 Kirk and colleagues1 (1997) have examined the methodo-
logical challenges and developmental considerations inherent in pediatric implant
assessment and categorized variables relating to
The child’s age and level of language and cognitive development (internal
variables)
The child’s ability and willingness to respond as influenced by reinforcement and
required memory task (external variables)
The procedure of voice presentation, the test administered, and the available
options from which to choose a response (methodological variables)
964 Semenov et al
Tests of speech perceptions typically used for childhood assessment have been
described in detail1,27–29 and typically consist of closed-set tests that assess word
identification among a limited set of options with auditory cues only, open-set tests
(scored by percentage of individual words correctly repeated), and structured inter-
views of parents using criteria-based surveys to assess the response to sound in
everyday situations and behaviors related to spoken communication.
SPEECH COMPREHENSION RESULTS IN CHILDREN WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
Early assessments of pediatric hearing outcomes were performed by House and

colleagues30 (1983) and showed substantial improvement in auditory thresholds and
closed-set speech recognition, albeit with limited open-set speech recognition using
early technology (House-3M single-channel implant). In 1994, Miyamoto and
colleagues31 provided systematic, well-controlled assessments of childhood cohorts
and consistently demonstrated performance advantages of multichannel over single-
channel implants. Other early studies by Fryauf-Bertschy and colleagues32 (1992),
Waltzman and colleagues33 (1994), Miyamoto and colleagues34 (1993), and Gantz
and colleagues35 (1994) observed that implanted children gain substantial speech-
perception capabilities for 5 years after implantation. Furthermore, the fact that
many of the implanted children tracked in these studies were congenitally or prelin-
gually deaf indicates that implantation can provide auditory access during critical
developmental stages to form the early correlates of spoken language. More recent
auditory outcomes publications reflect advances in implant technology and informa-
tion processing, yielding ever-improving means in speech recognition results.
Over the past 15 years, a wealth of reports has documented further gains in speech
recognition in young children who are deaf using multichannel cochlear im-
plants.26,27,36,37 Miyamoto and colleagues34 (1993) noted that in 29 children with 1 to
4 years of experience with a cochlear implant, roughly half achieved open-set speech
recognition. Subsequent assessments using greater duration of postimplantation
follow-up suggest that this percentage has increased through the rest of the 1990s
and 2000s, with open-set speech-recognition scores averaging as high as 80%.37–39
Variability in speech-perception performance across patients is widely recog-
nized.7,26,40,41 Factors implicated in speech recognition variability include
Amount of residual hearing42,43
Age of implantation40,44,45
Mode of communication33,46
Family support47
Length of deafness43,48
Miyamoto and colleagues31 (1994) found that the duration of deafness, communica-
tion mode, age at onset of deafness, and the processor used accounted for roughly
35% of the variance in closed-set testing, with the length of implant use accounting
for the largest percentage of variance in measures of speech perception. O’Donoghue
and colleagues40 (2000) found that age at implantation and mode of communication
had a significant effect on speech-perception development in young children after
implantation.
Zwolan and colleagues44 (2004) and Manrique and colleagues45 (2004) reported
improved speech perception in children implanted at younger than 2 years of age
compared with children implanted at an older age. Multicenter data reported by
Osberger (2002)49 indicate that implantation performance of children implanted at
younger than 2 years of age is significantly better than that of children implanted
between 2 and 3 years of age. However, Osberger also identified an important con-
founding variable that exists in the children who receive a cochlear implant at
a younger age: they are more likely to use an oral mode of communication. This
finding, by itself, may be a predictor of higher implant performance, which is an obser-
vation borne out in early studies of a national childhood cohort assembled by Geers
and colleagues46 (2000).
Osberger (2002) also found that children with more residual hearing were under-
going implantation relative to earlier cohorts. Gantz and colleagues50 (2000) compiled
data from across centers that indicate children with some degree of preoperative
open-set speech recognition obtain substantially higher levels of speech comprehen-
sion. Taken together, these studies suggest the strongest potential for benefit exists
with implantation at a young age, when intervention is provided early and, in the
case of a progressive loss, before auditory input is lost completely.
Cheng and colleagues24 (1999) performed a meta-analysis of relevant literature on
speech recognition in children with cochlear implants. Of 1916 reports on cochlear
implants published since 1966, 44 provided sufficient patient data to compare speech
recognition results between published (n 5 1904 children) and unpublished (n 5 261)
trials. Meta-analysis was complicated by the diversity of tests required to address the
full spectrum of speech reception in implanted children. An expanded format of the
Speech Perception Categories51 was designed to integrate results across studies.
The main conclusions of this meta-analysis were that earlier implantation is consis-
tently associated with a greater trajectory of gain in speech-recognition performance
with an absence of a plateau in speech-recognition benefits over time. More than 75%
of the children with cochlear implants reported in peer-reviewed publications have
achieved substantial open-set speech recognition after 3 years of implant use.
In an effort to provide the first reference for evaluating postimplant speech recogni-
tion in children with cochlear implants, Wang and colleagues26 (2008) mapped the
speech-recognition trajectory of implanted children from baseline up to the 24-month
post–cochlear-implant evaluation (Fig. 2). The growth in speech-recognition develop-
ment over the first 24 months after the implantation was spread widely among children
with cochlear implants. A substantial number of children implanted at younger ages
demonstrated growth patterns very similar in range or well into the trajectories
of the normal-hearing children. A few children implanted at older ages showed slower
trajectories of development after implantation. In contrast, the trajectories of speech-
recognition development among normal-hearing children showed much less vari-
ability, forming a much tighter band of normal development.
LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN CHILDREN
The above-mentioned studies have helped to characterize gains in speech recogni-

tion. However, the primary goal of implantation in children is to facilitate comprehen-
sion and expression through the use of spoken language.
By improving auditory access, cochlear implants augment sound and phrase struc-
ture. Although difficult to characterize, benefits in receptive language skills and
language production after implantation are the crucial measure by which effectiveness
of implants in young children should be assessed. One approach is to compare
language performance on standardized tests.
The Reynell Developmental Language Scale evaluates both receptive and expres-
sive skills independently.52 These scales have been normalized by performance levels
of hearing children over an age range of 1 to 8 years and have been used extensively in
populations of children who are deaf. Children who are deaf without cochlear implants
966 Semenov et al
Fig. 2. Growth trajectories between baseline and 24-month follow-up visit using Speech
recognition in quiet (SRI-Q) index for (A) 97 normal-hearing (NH) children in black solid lines
and (B) 188 children with cochlear implants (CI) in red solid lines. The black solid curve (B) indi-
cates the nonparametric mean trajectory of SRI-Q index by age for all 97 NH children. The
black dashed line indicates the estimated lower boundary of SRI-Q score, by age, achieved
by the NH children. (Adapted from Wang NY, Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, et al. Tracking devel-
opment of speech recognition: longitudinal data from hierarchical assessments in the Child-
hood Development after Cochlear Implantation Study. Otol Neurotol 2008;29(2):240–5; with
permission.)
achieved language competence at half the rate of their normal-hearing peers, whereas
implanted patients exhibited language-learning rates that matched, on average, those
of their normal-hearing peers52,53 (Niparko and colleagues,54 2010). In a study of 188
children deafened before 3 years of age assessed language development following
cochlear implantation. The average age of implantation in this cohort was approxi-
mately 27 months. They found that cochlear implantation is consistently associated
with a significant improvement in comprehension and expression of spoken language

over the first 3 years of implant use. The development of spoken language was posi-
tively associated with younger age at implantation and greater residual hearing before
implantation. The rate of improvement in performance on spoken-language measures
was less steep in children undergoing cochlear implantation at later ages, with clinical
gaps that persist with longitudinal follow-up (Fig. 3). The implication of this study is
that cochlear implantation not only improves spoken-language expression and
comprehension of children who are severely to profoundly deaf but does so early at
a significantly increased rate in infants and toddlers.
In addition to younger ages at implantation, Moog and colleagues55 (2010) found
that early educational intervention is also associated with improvements in language
development after cochlear implantation. The effect of this benefit was increased
when implantation took place at younger ages. Moreover, a recent study by Geers
and colleagues56 (2009) showed that more than half of implanted children who used
early educational intervention exhibited age-appropriate vocabulary scores by
kindergarten.
Fig. 3. Nonparametric fit of Reynell Developmental Language Scales raw scores of compre-
hension and expression stratified by age at baseline and test age. The effect of cochlear
implantation in children on language development. The horizontal dotted line projects
the chronologic age at which the mean scores of normal-hearing children at baseline
(30.1 for comprehension and 27.6 for expression) were obtained by subgroups of children
undergoing cochlear implantation at different ages. Vertical drop lines indicate ages at
which this score was obtained for each group of children. On the comprehension scale,
the ages were 2.3 years for normal-hearing children and among children undergoing
cochlear implantation, 3.4 years for children younger than 18 months at implant, 4.7 years
for those aged 18 to 36 months at implant, and 5.3 years for those older than 36 months at
implant. On the expression scale, the ages were 2.3 years for hearing children and among
children undergoing cochlear implantation, 3.4 years for children younger than 18 months
at implant, 4.5 years for those aged 18 to 36 months at implant, and 5.2 years for those older
than 36 months at implant. (Adapted from Niparko JK, Tobey EA, Thal DJ, et al. Spoken
language development in children following cochlear implantation. JAMA 2010;303(15):
1498–506; with permission.)
968 Semenov et al
From a communication perspective, Robbins and colleagues52 (1997) noted that

implantation improved language-learning rates for children in both oral- and total-
communication settings based on the Reynell Developmental Language Scale. Geers
and colleagues46 (2000), also assessing language skills in implanted children enrolled
in oral and total communication (TC) settings, found that the groups did not differ in
language level, although the oral group demonstrated significantly better intelligibility
in their speech production. Additionally, performance on language measures can be
influenced by the child’s mode of communication such that results may not directly
reflect the influences of auditory perception or prosthetic intervention.57,58 Clinical
findings, however, support the hypothesis that some children who are deaf are able
to use the acoustic-phonetic cues provided by the implant in ways that may reduce
the language gap between normal-hearing and deaf children.
Central nervous system processing is a primary determinant of the level of verbal
language ultimately attained after cochlear implantation. Pisoni and colleagues59
(1995) assessed performance in 2 groups of pediatric cochlear implant users:
1. Stars were children whose Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten (PBK) test scores
placed them in the top 20%.
2. The second group, children with scores in the bottom 20%, composed the control
group.
Children with superior implant performance were consistently better on measures of

speech perception (ie, vowel and consonant recognition), spoken-word recognition,
comprehension, language development, and speech intelligibility than the control chil-
dren. However, the two groups did not differ in their vocabulary knowledge, nonverbal
intelligence, visual-motor integration, or visual attention. It was concluded that a star
performance on measures of spoken-language processing and speech intelligibility
was not caused by global differences in overall performance but to differences specif-
ically in the task of processing auditory information provided by the cochlear implant.
A strength-of-correlation analyses revealed a highly significant association between
spoken-word recognition, language development, and speech intelligibility for the
stars group but not for the control group. A star performance seemed to result from
an increased ability to process language and to develop phonological and lexical
representations for words.
Pisoni and colleagues60 (2000) further posit that the exceptional performance of the
stars seems to be caused by their superior abilities to perceive, encode, and retrieve
information about spoken words from lexical memory. They described the capacity for
processing tasks that require the manipulation and transformation of the phonological
representations of spoken words as “working memory.”
OUTCOMES AFTER COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION

Educational Placement and Support of Implanted Children
Children with hearing impairments are at substantial risk for educational under-
achievement.61,62 Educational achievement by children with hearing impairments
can be enhanced by verbal communication, and traditional methods of speech
instruction are more successful with children who have enough residual hearing to
benefit from early devices of hearing rehabilitation.63 Improved speech perception
and production provided by cochlear implants offer the possibility of increased access
to oral-based education and enhanced educational independence.
Koch and colleagues64 (1997) and Francis and colleagues65 (1999) tracked the
educational progress of implanted children by using an educational resource matrix
to map educational and rehabilitative resource use. The matrix was developed from
observations that changes in classroom settings (eg, into a mainstream classroom)
are often compensated by an initial increase in interpreter and speech-language
therapy. A follow-up of 35 school-aged children with implants indicated that, relative
to age-matched hearing-aid users with equivalent baseline hearing, implanted
students are mainstreamed at a substantially higher rate, although this effect is not
immediate and requires rehabilitative support to be achieved. Within 5 years after
implantation, the rate of full-time assignment to a mainstream classroom increases
from 12% to 75% (Fig. 4).
This greater rate of mainstream education in the implanted population has, in turn,
led to increased benefits for implanted children. In one of the most comprehensive
studies of the effects of educational placement on outcomes from cochlear implanta-
tion, Geers and colleagues66 (2008) has followed a group of 85 patients from the
elementary grades to high school. A battery of tests was used to assess student
performance in speech perception, language, and reading. Speech-perception scores
improved significantly with long-term cochlear implant use. Mean language scores
improved at a faster-than-normal rate, but reading scores did not keep pace with
normal development. Not surprisingly, oral communication at school (an educational
Fig. 4. Matrix of educational resources usage by implanted children. (A) The Educational
Resource Matrix plot classroom placement (ordinate) versus rehabilitative (speech-language
and interpretive) support (abscissa). (B) Relationship between educational placement and
duration of implant experience. Patterns of change in use of educational resources in
a cohort of children within 6 years of implantation. Note the higher levels of mainstreaming
and reduced use of support services with prolonged use of the cochlear implant. (Adapted
from Francis HW, Koch ME, Wyatt JR, et al. Trends in educational placement and cost-benefit
considerations in children with cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
1999;125(5):499–505; with permission.)
970 Semenov et al
mode used in mainstream classes) contributed significantly to the improvement in the

previously mentioned categories. However, the study observed that implant recipients
achieving high scores on the previously mentioned tests in elementary school also
continued performing better than the rest of the study population in high school, sug-
gesting the presence of additional factors, such as nonverbal intelligence, influencing
postimplantation outcomes.
Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness
Prior studies of the cost utility of cochlear implants have assessed quality of life and
health status to determine the utility gained from cochlear implants.67–70 Utility is
a concept that reflects the true value of a good or service. Cost-utility methods deter-
mine the ratio of monetary expenditure to change in utility as defined by a change
in quality of life over a given period. The assessment of cost utility is based on the
following:
Cost-utility 5 costs ðin $Þ=Dðquality-adjusted life-yearsÞ

5 costs ðin $Þ=Dðlife-years health utilityÞ
The term life-years is the mean anticipated number of years of implant experience
based on a life-expectancy analysis of the participating cohort. The change in health
utility reflects the difference between preimplant and postimplant scores on survey
instruments that have been designed and validated to reflect quality of life. In the early
2000s, health interventions with a cost-utility ratio less than $25 000 were generally
considered to represent an acceptable value for the money expended (ie, they
are cost-effective).71–73 More recent studies in the United Kingdom have used
a £30 000 ($46 000) societal willingness-to-pay cutoff in the determination of cost-
effective interventions in health care.74
STUDIES IN ADULTS AND THE ELDERLY
Costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for the cochlear implant in adult users were
determined using cost data that account for the preoperative, postoperative, and
operative phases of cochlear implantation.67,68,70,75,76 Benefits were determined by
the functional status and quality of life. The precise cost-utility results varied between
studies mostly because of methodological differences in the determination of benefit,
level of benefit obtained, and differences in costs associated with the intervention.
Nonetheless, these appraisals consistently indicated that the multichannel
cochlear implant in adult populations is associated with cost-utility ratios in the range
of $14 000 to $16 000 per QALY for unilateral implantation in the United States, indi-
cating a highly favorable position in terms of cost-effectiveness (Table 1). Moreover,
recent studies have focused on evaluating the cost-effectiveness of bilateral cochlear
implantation. Although not as cost-effective as the first implant, Bichey and col-
leagues76 (2008) showed that bilateral cochlear implantation carried an incremental
cost-utility ratio of $38 198 per QALY in US adults and still ranks among the most
cost-effective interventions in health care.
Hearing impairment is one of the most common clinical conditions affecting elderly
people in the United States.77 Hearing loss is so profound in 10% of the aged hearing-
impaired population that little or no benefit is gained with conventional amplification.78
Assessing the effectiveness of cochlear implants in the elderly requires consideration
of both audiological and psychosocial factors. The social isolation associated with
acquired hearing loss in the elderly79 is accompanied by a significant decline in quality
of life and an increase in emotional handicaps.80 The rehabilitation of hearing loss is,
Table 1
Cost-utility ratio of the cochlear implant in adults and children
Cost-Utility Ratio ($)/QALY

Unilateral vs Bilateral vs
Study Instrument Country Population No CI Unilateral CI
Summerfield et al,74 TTO United Kingdom Children 34 824 37 100
2010 VAS 23 026 30 973
Bond et al,70 2009 HUI United Kingdom Children 25 519 70 470
HUI Adults 33 132 86 425
Bichey et al,76 2008 HUI United States Children 10 221 39 115
HUI Adults 11 092 38 189
Summerfield et al,75 HUI United Kingdom Adults 45 215 118 387
2002
Cheng et al,69 2000 TTO United States Children 9029 —
VAS 7500
HUI 5197
Palmer et al,96 1999 HUI United States Adults 14 670 —
Wyatt et al,68 1996 HUI United States Adults 15 928 —
Variability on cost-utility metrics is largely attributable to different methodologies of direct cost

calculation across countries. A threshold of $25 000/QALY or lower is considered an accep-
table cost-utility ratio for a given health intervention in the United States and Canada. A £30 000
($46 000) willingness-to-pay threshold has been recently proposed as a cutoff threshold in the
United Kingdom.
Abbreviations: CI, cochlear implant; HUI, Health Utilities Index; TTO, time trade-off; VAS, visual
analog scale.
therefore, an important goal in this vulnerable population, providing both functional

and psychological contributions to quality of life.
Age-related degeneration of the spiral ganglion81,82 and progressive central audi-
tory dysfunction83,84 raise potential concerns about the efficacy of cochlear pros-
theses in the elderly. Comparable gains in speech understanding have been
reported for both elderly and younger groups of implant recipients,85 but the implica-
tions of these functional gains on the quality of life of older adults have not been well
characterized. The determination of both auditory efficacy and quality of life is critical
to any cost-benefit analysis in the elderly and may help guide clinical resource alloca-
tion, particularly in light of the high costs associated with cochlear implantation as
a non–life-saving intervention.
Reports of quality-of-life gains in elderly patients with cochlear implants have been
favorable86–88 but are based on questionnaires that are difficult to correlate with func-
tion and cost utility. Francis and colleagues14 (2002) evaluated 47 patients with multi-
channel cochlear implants, aged 50 to 80 years, who completed the Ontario Health
Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI 3) survey as well as a quality-of-life survey. This study
assessed preimplantation and postimplantation (6 months and 1 year after implanta-
tion) responses to questions related to device use and quality of life. There was a signif-
icant mean gain in health utility of 0.24 (SD 0.33) associated with cochlear implantation
(P<.0001) (Fig. 5). Improvements in hearing and emotional health attributes were
primarily responsible for this increase in health-related quality-of-life measure. There
was a significant increase in speech-perception scores at 6 months after surgery
(P<.0001 for both the Central Institute for the Deaf (CID) everyday sentence and mono-
syllabic word tests) and a strong correlation between the magnitude of health-utility
gains and postoperative enhancement of speech perception (r 5 0.45, P<.05).
972 Semenov et al
Fig. 5. Impact of cochlear implants (CI) on the functional health status of older adults. Mean
monosyllabic word scores obtained in older adult patients with postlingual hearing
impairment just before CI surgery and at 6 and 12 months afterward (error bar 5 1 SE).
Monosyllabic word scores, which are generally considered one of the most difficult tests
of speech perception, clearly increase during the first year after CI. (Adapted from Francis
HW, Chee N, Yeagle J, et al. Impact of cochlear implants on the functional health status
of older adults. Laryngoscope 2002;112(8 Pt 1):1482–8; with permission.)
Speech-perception gain was also correlated with improvements in emotional status

and the hours of daily implant use. The investigators concluded that cochlear implan-
tation has a statistically significant and cost-effective impact on the quality of life of
older patients who are deaf.
STUDIES IN CHILDREN
Published cost-utility analyses of the cochlear implant in children have been limited by
using either health utilities obtained from adult patients70,72,74–76,89 or hypothetically
estimated utilities of a child who is deaf.90–93 These studies yielded cost-utility ratios
that spread out over a wide range ($3141 to $25 450 per QALY). Utility assessments
derived from adult-patient surveys may not capture the impact of issues unique to
childhood deafness.24 To address this issue more rigorously, Cheng and colleagues69
(2000) surveyed parents of 78 children (average age 7.4 years, with 1.9 years of
cochlear implant use) who received multichannel implants at the Johns Hopkins
Hospital to determine direct and total cost to society per QALY. Parents of children
who were profoundly deaf (n 5 48) awaiting cochlear implantation served as a compar-
ison group to assess the validity of recall. Parents rated their child’s health state now,
immediately before, and 1 year before the cochlear implant using the time trade-off
(TTO), visual analog scale (VAS), and HUI 3. Mean VAS scores increased 0.27 on
a scale of 0 to 1 (from 0.59–0.86), TTO scores increased 0.22 (from 0.75–0.97), and
HUI scores increased 0.39 (from 0.25–0.64) (Fig. 6). Discounted direct medical costs
were $60 228, yielding cost-utility ratios of $9029 per QALY using the TTO, $7500 per
QALY using the VAS, and $5197 per QALY using the HUI 3. Including indirect costs,
such as reduced educational expenses, the cochlear implant yielded a calculated
net savings of $53 198 per child. Based on assessments of this cohort based in a single
center, childhood cochlear implantation produces a positive impact on quality of life at
reasonable direct costs and results in societal savings.
The educational resource matrix used by Koch and colleagues64 (1997) and Francis
and colleagues65 (1999) also offers a basis for assessing overall cost-benefit ratios.
Although initial educational costs for implanted students remained static or increased
Fig. 6. Retrospective health utility scores from parents of children with cochlear implants. This figure shows 3 different methods of assessing health-
Cochlear Implants
utility scores. The mean change in utility (postintervention – preintervention scores) was 0.27 for the VAS, 0.22 for the TTO instrument, and 0.39 for the
HUI 3. The error bars on the side of each graph show mean scores with 95% confidence intervals. (Adapted from Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, et al.
Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000;284(7):850–6; with permission.)
973
974 Semenov et al
over the first 3 years, an ultimate achievement of educational independence for most
implanted children produced net savings that ranged from $30 000 to $100 000 per
child, including the costs associated with initial cochlear implantation and postopera-
tive rehabilitation. Language- and education-related outcomes in children with
cochlear implants have been supplemented with parental perspectives of quality-of-
life effects to yield cost-utility ratings.69,89 Even with conservative assumptions,
both studies supported the view that cochlear implantation is, relative to other medical
and surgical interventions, highly cost-effective in young children who are profoundly
hearing impaired.
Recent trends in cost-effectiveness have aimed at analyzing the comparative effec-
tiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation by the age at procedure. These studies
have shown that younger ages at implantation are associated not only with more
favorable auditory outcomes but also with lower direct and indirect costs.45,94,95
SUMMARY
Cochlear implants offer an option in the auditory rehabilitation of congenital, as well as

acquired, profound SNHL for candidates across the age spectrum. Although
a cochlear implant facilitates sensitive hearing reliably, actual listening capabilities
are less easily characterized. Speech-recognition results are variable, and there is
increasing awareness that epiphenomena surrounding implantation and the postim-
plant experience affect performance. Thus, expected results depend heavily on the
environment in which cochlear implants are used as well as case selection. Children
with early onset deafness lack a base of auditory memory with which to pair
implant-mediated percepts and they may harbor other disabilities that may prevent
instinctive language learning. Such conditions can produce a wide range of individual
variability, particularly when intervention with a cochlear implant is delayed. Adults
with cochlear implants exhibit a similarly wide range of results usually owing in large
part to factors outside of the device per se. These facts mandate comprehensive pre-
implant assessment. Screening for other handicapping conditions, particularly those
that will impair the acquisition of receptive and productive communication skills, will
help determine candidacy and direct rehabilitative strategies. By enabling simulta-
neous input of multiple perspectives, a multidisciplinary team is the most effective
approach to assessing a candidate’s needs and desires and the potential for an
implant to meet them.
In the 1980s, candidacy requirements for a cochlear implant required total or near-total
sensorineural hearing losses as characterized by a pure-tone average of 100 dB or
greater, amplified thresholds that failed to reach 60 dB, and an absence of open-set
speech recognition despite the use of powerful, best-fit hearing aids. Because clinical
experience has indicated that the mean speech-reception scores of implant recipients
generally exceed the aided results of individuals with lesser impairments, the audiologic
criteria have been progressively relaxed over the past 30 years to include those with
a range of pure-tone averages, focusing instead on functional benefits provided by ampli-
fication. In children, initial reports suggest that implantation before the age of 3 years
provides distinct advantages over later implantation in cases of early onset deafness.
Whether earlier implantation may yield greater benefits will require longitudinal follow-
up of the development of the ever-younger infants undergoing implantation.
Additionally, postimplantation rehabilitation can be important for some adult implant
recipients but seems critical for children to optimize the usefulness of an implant. It is
often assumed that effective interactive skills and language comprehension directly
result from the sensitivity with which sound is perceived through a cochlear implant.
However, hearing is not a sufficient condition for these higher skills, and there is
a compelling rationale for a high priority to be placed on auditory rehabilitation to
enhance fundamental skills in verbal communication.
REFERENCES
1. Kirk K. Assessing speech perception in children. In: Mendel L, Danhauer J,

editors. Audiologic evaluation and management and speech perception assess-
ment. San Diego (CA): Singular; 1997. p. 101–32.
2. Nilsson M, McCaw V, Soli S. Minimum speech test battery for adult cochlear
implant users. User’s manual. Los Angeles (CA): House Ear Institute; 1997.
3. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the hearing in noise test for the
measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust
Soc Am 1994;95(2):1085–99. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
8132902. Accessed November 18, 2011.
4. Lehiste I. Linguistic considerations in the study of speech intelligibility. J Acoust
Soc Am 1959;31(3):280. Available at: http://link.aip.org/link/?JASMAN/31/280/1.
Accessed January 23, 2012.
5. Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord
1962;27:62–70. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14485785. Ac-
cessed January 23, 2012.
6. Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson AM. Speech recognition materials and ceiling
effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol 2008;
13(3):193–205. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18212519. Ac-
7. Waltzman SB, Fisher SG, Niparko JK, et al. Predictors of postoperative perfor-
mance with cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;165:15–8.
Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7717629. Accessed January
24, 2012.
8. Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, et al. Residual speech recognition and
cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999;
9. Hamzavi J, Baumgartner WD, Pok SM, et al. Variables affecting speech percep-
tion in postlingually deaf adults following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol
2003;123(4):493–8. Available at: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/
0036554021000028120. Accessed January 5, 2012.
10. Budenz CL, Cosetti MK, Coelho DH, et al. The effects of cochlear implantation on
speech perception in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59(3):446–53. Avail-
able at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21361884. Accessed January 5,
2012.
11. Skinner MW, Fourakis MS, Holden TA, et al. Identification of speech by cochlear
implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK)
speech coding strategies II. Consonants. Ear Hear 1999;20(6):443–60. Available
at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10613383. Accessed January 24, 2012.
12. Cohen NL. Cochlear implant soft surgery: fact or fantasy? Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 1997;117(3 Pt 1):214–6. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
13. Shin YJ, Fraysse B, Deguine O, et al. Benefits of cochlear implantation in elderly
patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122(4):602–6. Available at: http://oto.
sagepub.com/content/122/4/602.full. Accessed January 24, 2012.
976 Semenov et al
14. Francis HW, Chee N, Yeagle J, et al. Impact of cochlear implants on the functional
health status of older adults. Laryngoscope 2002;112(8 Pt 1):1482–8. Available
15. Veronique Chatelin EK. Cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly. Cochlear
Implants Int 2003;4(Suppl 1):55–6. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/18792178. Accessed January 23, 2012.
16. Haensel J, Ilgner J, Chen YS, et al. Speech perception in elderly patients following
cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125(12):1272–6. Available at: http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16303673. Accessed January 5, 2012.
17. Friedland DR, Venick HS, Niparko JK. Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the
effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance.
Otol Neurotol 2003;24(4):582–9. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
18. Leung J, Wang NY, Yeagle JD, et al. Predictive models for cochlear implantation
in elderly candidates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;131(12):1049–54.
Available at: http://archotol.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/12/1049. Ac-
19. Roditi RE, Poissant SF, Bero EM, et al. A predictive model of cochlear implant per-
formance in postlingually deafened adults. Otol Neurotol 2009;30(4):449–54.
24, 2012.
20. Francis HW, Yeagle JD, Bowditch S, et al. Cochlear implant outcome is not influ-
enced by the choice of ear. Ear Hear 2005;26(Suppl 4):7S–16S. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16082263. Accessed January 5, 2012.
21. Wilson B. Cochlear implant technology. In: Niparko J, Kirk K, Mellon N, et al,
editors. Cochlear implants: principles and practices. Philadelphia: Lippincott,
Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p. 109–27.
22. Krueger B, Joseph G, Rost U, et al. Performance groups in adult cochlear implant
users: speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otol Neurotol 2008;29(4):
509–12. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18520586. Accessed
January 23, 2012.
23. NIH Consensus development statement: cochlear implants in adults and chil-
dren. JAMA 1995;274:1955–61.
24. Cheng AK, Niparko JK. Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: a meta-anal-
ysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125(11):1214–8. Available at: http://
25. Yoon PJ. Pediatric cochlear implantation. Curr Opin Pediatr 2011;23(3):346–50.
6, 2012.
26. Wang NY, Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, et al. Tracking development of speech
recognition: longitudinal data from hierarchical assessments in the Childhood
Development after Cochlear Implantation Study. Otol Neurotol 2008;29(2):
240–5. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid5
2733235&tool5pmcentrez&rendertype5abstract. Accessed January 24, 2012.
27. Osberger MJ, Kalberer A, Zimmerman-Phillips S, et al. Speech perception results
in children using the Clarion Multi-Strategy Cochlear Implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Lar-
yngol Suppl 2000;185:75–7. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
28. Kirk K. Challenges in the clinical investigation of cochlear implant outcomes. In:
Niparko J, Kirk K, Mellon N, et al, editors. Cochlear implants: principles & prac-
tices. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p. 225–58.
29. Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, Martinez AS, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of
a child with an auditory brainstem implant. Otol Neurotol 2008;29(2):251–7.
Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/5821242_Comprehensive_
evaluation_of_a_child_with_an_auditory_brainstem_implant. Accessed January
23, 2012.
30. House WF, Berliner KI, Eisenberg LS. Experiences with the cochlear implant in
preschool children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1983;92(6 Pt 1):587–92. Available
31. Miyamoto RT, Osberger MJ, Todd SL, et al. Variables affecting implant perfor-
mance in children. Laryngoscope 1994;104(9):1120–4. Available at: http://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8072359. Accessed January 23, 2012.
32. Fryauf-Bertschy H, Tyler RS, Kelsay DM, et al. Performance over time of congenitally
deaf and postlingually deafened children using a multichannel cochlear implant.
J Speech Hear Res 1992;35(4):913–20. Available at: http://www.mendeley.com/
research/performance-time-congenitally-deaf-postlingually-deafened-children-
using-multichannel-cochlear-implant/. Accessed January 23, 2012.
33. Waltzman SB, Cohen NL, Gomolin RH, et al. Long-term results of early cochlear
implantation in congenitally and prelingually deafened children. Am J Otol 1994;
15(Suppl 2):9–13. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8572107.
34. Miyamoto RT, Osberger MJ, Robbins AM, et al. Prelingually deafened children’s
performance with the nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1993;
35. Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Woodworth GG, et al. Results of multichannel cochlear
implants in congenital and acquired prelingual deafness in children: five-year
follow-up. Am J Otol 1994;15(Suppl 2):1–7. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/8572105. Accessed January 23, 2012.
36. Eisenberg LS, Johnson KC, Martinez AS, et al. Speech recognition at 1-year
follow-up in the childhood development after cochlear implantation study:
methods and preliminary findings. Audiol Neurootol 2006;11(4):259–68. Avail-
able at: http://www.mendeley.com/research/speech-recognition-1year-follow
up-childhood-development-after-cochlear-implantation-study-methods-preliminary-
findings/. Accessed January 23, 2012.
37. Davidson LS, Geers AE, Blamey PJ, et al. Factors contributing to speech per-
ception scores in long-term pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2011;
32(Suppl 1):19S–26S. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article
render.fcgi?artid53187573&tool5pmcentrez&rendertype5abstract. Accessed
January 24, 2012.
38. Beadle EA, McKinley DJ, Nikolopoulos TP, et al. Long-term functional outcomes
and academic-occupational status in implanted children after 10 to 14 years of
cochlear implant use. Otol Neurotol 2005;26(6):1152–60. Available at: http://
39. Uziel AS, Sillon M, Vieu A, et al. Ten-year follow-up of a consecutive series of children
with multichannel cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2007;28(5):615–28. Available at:
40. O’Donoghue GM, Nikolopoulos TP, Archbold SM. Determinants of speech
perception in children after cochlear implantation. Lancet 2000;356(9228):
466–8. Available at: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/a/article/PIIS0140-6736
(00http://www.thelancet.com/journals/a/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)02555-1/fulltext.
978 Semenov et al
41. O’Neill C, O’Donoghue GM, Archbold SM, et al. Variations in gains in auditory
performance from pediatric cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 2002;23(1):
January 23, 2012.
42. Zwolan TA, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Ashbaugh CJ, et al. Cochlear implantation of
children with minimal open-set speech recognition skills. Ear Hear 1997;18(3):
January 24, 2012.
43. Meyer TA, Svirsky MA, Kirk KI, et al. Improvements in speech perception by chil-
dren with profound prelingual hearing loss: effects of device, communication
mode, and chronological age. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998;41(4):846–58.
23, 2012.
44. Zwolan TA, Ashbaugh CM, Alarfaj A, et al. Pediatric cochlear implant patient
performance as a function of age at implantation. Otol Neurotol 2004;25(2):
January 24, 2012.
45. Manrique M, Cervera-Paz FJ, Huarte A, et al. Advantages of cochlear implanta-
tion in prelingual deaf children before 2 years of age when compared with later
implantation. Laryngoscope 2004;114(8):1462–9. Available at: http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15280727. Accessed January 23, 2012.
46. Geers AE, Nicholas J, Tye-Murray N, et al. Effects of communication mode on
skills of long-term cochlear implant users. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl
2000;185:89–92. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11141021.
47. Fryauf-Bertschy H, Tyler RS, Kelsay DM, et al. Cochlear implant use by prelin-
gually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device
use. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997;40(1):183–99. Available at: http://jslhr.asha.
org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/183. Accessed January 23, 2012.
48. Vieu A, Mondain M, Blanchard K, et al. Influence of communication mode on
speech intelligibility and syntactic structure of sentences in profoundly hearing
impaired French children implanted between 5 and 9 years of age. Int J Pediatr
Otorhinolaryngol 1998;44(1):15–22. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
49. Osberger MJ, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Koch DB. Cochlear implant candidacy and
performance trends in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2002;189:62–5.
23, 2012.
50. Gantz BJ, Rubinstein JT, Tyler RS, et al. Long-term results of cochlear implants in
children with residual hearing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000;185:33–6.
23, 2012.
51. Geers AE, Moog JS. Predicting spoken language acquisition of profoundly
hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Disord 1987;52(1):84–94. Available at:
http://jshd.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/1/84. Accessed January 23, 2012.
52. Robbins AM, Svirsky M, Kirk KI. Children with implants can speak, but can they
communicate? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117(3 Pt 1):155–60. Available
53. Svirsky MA, Robbins AM, Kirk KI, et al. Language development in profoundly
deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci 2000;11(2):153–8. Available
54. Niparko JK, Tobey EA, Thal DJ, et al. Spoken language development in children
following cochlear implantation. JAMA 2010;303(15):1498–506. Available at:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid53073449&tool5pm
centrez&rendertype5abstract. Accessed January 23, 2012.
55. Moog JS, Geers AE. Early educational placement and later language out-
comes for children with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2010;31(8):1315–9.
23, 2012.
56. Geers AE, Moog JS, Biedenstein J, et al. Spoken language scores of children
using cochlear implants compared to hearing age-mates at school entry.
J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2009;14(3):371–85. Available at: http://jdsde.oxford
journals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/371. Accessed June 20, 2011.
57. Levitt H, McGarr N, Geffner D. Development of language and communication
skills in hearing-impaired children, vol. 26. Rockville (MD): ASHA Monogr; 1987.
p. 1–158.
58. Moeller MP, Osberger MJ, Eccarius M. Language and learning skills of hearing-
impaired students. Receptive language skills. ASHA Monogr 1986;23:41–53.
23, 2012.
59. Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pe-
diatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995;16(5):470–81. Available at: http://
www.mendeley.com/research/lexical-effects-spoken-word-recognition-pediatric-
cochlear-implant-users/. Accessed January 23, 2012.
60. Pisoni DB, Geers AE. Working memory in deaf children with cochlear implants:
correlations between digit span and measures of spoken language processing.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2000;185:92–3. Available at: http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11141023. Accessed January 23, 2012.
61. Trybus RJ, Karchmer MA. School achievement scores of hearing impaired chil-
dren: national data on achievement status and growth patterns. Am Ann Deaf
1977;122(2):62–9. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/868721.
62. Holt JA. Stanford achievement test, 8th edition: reading comprehension
subgroup results. Am Ann Deaf 1996;138:172–5.
63. Geers AE, Moog JS. Evaluating the benefits of cochlear implants in an education
setting. Am J Otol 1991;12(Suppl):116–25. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/2069172. Accessed January 23, 2012.
64. Koch ME, Wyatt JR, Francis HW, et al. A model of educational resource use by
children with cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117(3 Pt 1):
January 23, 2012.
65. Francis HW, Koch ME, Wyatt JR, et al. Trends in educational placement and cost-
benefit considerations in children with cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 1999;125(5):499–505. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
66. Geers A, Tobey E, Moog J, et al. Long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation
in the preschool years: from elementary grades to high school. Int J Audiol
2008;47(Suppl 2):S21–30. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
19012109. Accessed July 13, 2011.
67. Summerfield A. Cochlear implantation in the UK 1990-1994: report by the MRC
Institute of Hearing Research on the Evaluation of the National Cochlear Im-
plant Programme: executive summary and synopsis. London: H.M.S.O; 1995.
980 Semenov et al
Available at: http://www.worldcat.org/title/cochlear-implantation-in-the-uk-1990-

1994-report-by-the-mrc-institute-of-hearing-research-on-the-evaluation-of-the-
national-cochlear-implant-programme-executive-summary-and-synopsis/oclc/
68. Wyatt JR, Niparko JK, Rothman M, et al. Cost utility of the multichannel cochlear
implants in 258 profoundly deaf individuals. Laryngoscope 1996;106(7):816–21.
24, 2012.
69. Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, et al. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant
in children. JAMA 2000;284(7):850–6. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/10938174. Accessed July 5, 2011.
70. Bond M, Mealing S, Anderson R, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of
cochlear implants for severe to profound deafness in children and adults: a system-
atic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(44):1–330. Avail-
able at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19799825. Accessed July 22, 2011.
71. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
72. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Archbold S. Cost-effectiveness considerations
in pediatric cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 1997;18(Suppl 6):S166–8. Available at:
73. Azimi NA, Welch HG. The effectiveness of cost-effectiveness analysis in contain-
ing costs. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13(10):664–9. Available at: http://www.pubmed
central.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid51500894&tool5pmcentrez&rendertype5
abstract. Accessed January 24, 2012.
74. Summerfield AQ, Lovett RE, Bellenger H, et al. Estimates of the cost-
effectiveness of pediatric bilateral cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2010;31(5):
January 24, 2012.
75. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Barton GR, et al. A cost-utility scenario analysis of
bilateral cochlear implantation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128(11):
July 5, 2011.
76. Bichey BG, Miyamoto RT. Outcomes in bilateral cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2008;138(5):655–61. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/18439474. Accessed October 10, 2011.
77. Campbell VA, Crews JE, Moriarty DG, et al. Surveillance for sensory impairment,
activity limitation, and health-related quality of life among older adults - United
States, 1993-1997. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 1999;48:131–56.
78. Havlik R. Aging in the eighties, impaired senses for sound and light in persons age
65 years and over preliminary data from the supplement on aging to the public
health. National Center for Health Statistics 1986. Accessed January 23, 2012.
79. Weinstein BE, Ventry IM. Hearing impairment and social isolation in the elderly.
J Speech Hear Res 1982;25(4):593–9. Available at: http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/
content/abstract/25/4/593. Accessed January 24, 2012.
80. Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, et al. Association between hearing impairment
and the quality of life of elderly individuals. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990;38(1):45–50. Avail-
able at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2295767. Accessed January 23, 2012.
81. Otte J, Schunknecht HF, Kerr AG. Ganglion cell populations in normal and path-
ological human cochleae. Implications for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope
1978;88(8 Pt 1):1231–46. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
82. Ng M, Niparko JK, Nager GT. Inner ear pathology in severe to profound sensori-
neural hearing loss. In: Niparko JK, Kirk KI, Mellon NK, et al, editors. Cochlear
implants: principles and practices. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins;
2000. p. 57–100.
83. Welsh LW, Welsh JJ, Healy MP. Central presbycusis. Laryngoscope 1985;95(2):
January 24, 2012.
84. Stach BA, Spretnjak ML, Jerger J. The prevalence of central presbyacusis in
a clinical population. J Am Acad Audiol 1990;1(2):109–15. Available at: http://
85. Kelsall DC, Shallop JK, Burnelli T. Cochlear implantation in the elderly. Am J Otol
1995;16(5):609–15. Available at. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8588665.
86. Horn KL, McMahon NB, McMahon DC, et al. Functional use of the Nucleus 22-
channel cochlear implant in the elderly. Laryngoscope 1991;101(3):284–8. Avail-
2012.
87. Facer GW, Peterson AM, Brey RH. Cochlear implantation in the senior citizen age
group using the Nucleus 22-channel device. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl
1995;166:187–90. Available at: http://www.mendeley.com/research/cochlear-
implantation-senior-citizen-age-group-using-nucleus-22channel-device/. Ac-
88. Orabi AA, Mawman D, Al-Zoubi F, et al. Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of
life in the elderly: Manchester experience over 13 years. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;
89. O’Neill C. Cost-utility analysis of pediatric cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope
2000;110(7):1239. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10646733.
Accessed December 15, 2011.
90. Lea A. Cochlear implants. Health technology series, No. 6. Canberra (Australia):
Australian Institute of Health; 1991.
91. Lea AR, Hailey DM. The cochlear implant. A technology for the profoundly deaf.
Med Prog Technol 1995;21(1):47–52. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
92. Hutton J, Politi C, Seeger T. Cost-effectiveness of cochlear implantation of chil-
dren. A preliminary model for the UK. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 1995;50:201–6. Avail-
2012.
93. Carter R, Hailey D. Economic evaluation of the cochlear implant. Int J Technol
Assess Health Care 1999;15(3):520–30. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/10874379. Accessed January 24, 2012.
94. Govaerts PJ, De Beukelaer C, Daemers K, et al. Outcome of cochlear implanta-
tion at different ages from 0 to 6 years. Otol Neurotol 2002;23(6):885–90. Avail-
able at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12438851.
95. Colletti L, Mandalà M, Shannon RV, et al. Estimated net saving to society from
cochlear implantation in infants: a preliminary analysis. Laryngoscope 2011;
121(11):2455–60. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22020896.
Accessed December 15, 2011.
96. Palmer CS, Niparko JK, Wyatt J, Rothman M, de Lissovoy G. A Prospective Study
of the Cost-Utility of the Multichannel Cochlear Implant. Arch Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 1999;125(11):1221–8.
Reflux in Sinusitis
Michael Lupa, MD, John M. DelGaudio, MD*
KEYWORDS
Sinusitis Reflux Evidence base Aerodigestive Vagus nerve Gastric acid
KEY POINTS
There is a strong body of evidence showing a high prevalence of pharyngeal reflux events
in patients with surgically refractory chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).
In medically refractory CRS, most studies show a high prevalence of pharyngeal reflux
events.
The studies looking directly at the value of treatment of reflux in patients with CRS show
some benefit, although more powerful randomized studies are required for a more defin-
itive conclusion.
There is significant evidence for a link between postnasal drip symptomatology and the
presence of pharyngeal reflux, with good evidence for empiric treatment of postnasal
drip with proton-pump inhibitors.
OVERVIEW
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) remains one of the most common health care problems in
the United States.1–3 The pathophysiology of the disease process is complex but
involves inflammatory changes in the nasal and sinus mucosa, resulting in edema
and obstruction. These changes in turn cause mucus stasis with subsequent infec-
tion.4 The initiating insult causing these changes can be due to a variety of sources
including viral infection, environmental pollutants, and immune-mediated processes
such as environmental allergy or allergic fungal sinusitis. In addition, laryngopharyng-
eal reflux (LPR) has recently been implicated as a potential contributor to the patho-
physiology of CRS. This concept is consistent with the widespread role
extraesophageal reflux has been found to play in the pathophysiology of diseases
throughout both the upper and lower aerodigestive tract.1
Department of Otolaryngology, Emory University Hospital Midtown, 550 Peachtree Street, 11th
floor, Atlanta, GA 30308, USA
E-mail address: jdelgau@emory.edu

984 Lupa & DelGaudio
The exact mechanism by which LPR contributes to the pathophysiology of CRS is

unclear. There are currently 3 main theories:
1. The first theory proposes direct exposure of the nasopharynx and nose to gastric
acid. The acidic refluxate causes mucosal inflammation and impaired mucociliary
clearance.5
2. The second proposed mechanism is through a vagus nerve–mediated reflex, which
has been described to exist in the lower airway.6 Evidence to support this concept
is reported by Wong and colleagues,7 who showed a tendency for an increase in
nasal mucus production, nasal symptom scores, and to a lesser extent nasal inspi-
ratory peak flow in subjects who had direct administration of both nasal saline and
HCl-containing fluid at the level of the gastroesophageal junction.
3. The third mechanism involves a direct role of Helicobacter pylori. Koc and
colleagues8 found H pylori to be present in polyp tissue but not normal mucosa
taken during surgery for concha bullosa, although the numbers were small. In
another study, Morinaka and colleagues9 found that 3 of 19 specimens from
patients undergoing surgery for CRS contained H pylori by polymerase chain reac-
tion. This study did not contain a nondiseased tissue comparison.
Whether one of these processes mediates the effects seen in CRS, alone or in
combination, is still unclear, and further research is required.
EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL MANAGEMENT
Evidence for the role of LPR in the etiology of CRS comes mainly from research using
multisensor pH-probe studies looking for the presence of acid in the esophagus,
hypopharynx, and nasopharynx in patients with CRS. It is further derived from studies
looking at the correlation of LPR and other associated sinonasal diseases such as
postnasal drip (PND) and vasomotor rhinitis (VR), and from evidence concerning pedi-
atric sinonasal disease.
Evidence from Pediatric Studies

Evidence for a relationship between gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and pediatric sino-
nasal disease comes from a variety of sources and study designs (Table 1). Carr and
colleagues,10 in a retrospective study of children younger than 2 years, reported
a history of reflux in 42% of children undergoing adenoidectomy compared with 7%
of children undergoing tympanostomy tube placement alone. The study was
hampered by multiple inclusion criteria for the diagnosis of GER and few patients
receiving pH studies for diagnosis. El-Serag and colleagues11 retrospectively looked
at a large cohort of children with and without a diagnosis of GER disease (GERD),
and found a higher prevalence of sinusitis in the GERD group (4.2% vs 1.4%). The
study was weakened by the lack of any standardized criteria for establishing a diag-
nosis of GERD (group inclusion was based on presence of reflux ICD-9 code) and
the heterogeneous nature of the 2 groups (the GERD group was older).
Phipps and colleagues12 looked at a cohort of patients with CRS refractory to
medical therapy. The goal was to determine the prevalence of GERD in these patients
with CRS using dual-sensor pH monitoring. In this cohort 63% of patients were diag-
nosed with GERD. Of those patients with GERD, 32% were found to have nasopha-
ryngeal reflux (NPR). In patients who were diagnosed with GERD, reflux treatment
was instituted, achieving a 79% improvement in sinusitis symptoms based on parental
opinion. The investigators concluded that this cohort had a higher prevalence of GERD
than would be expected for their population, and secondly that treatment improved
Table 1
Pediatric studies linking reflux to sinonasal disease
Authors,Ref. Year Type Size Measurement Result EBM Level

Carr et al,10 2001 Case-control 194 Presence of GERD by gastric scintiscan, pH 42% GERD in adenoidectomy group vs 7% in 2b
probe, or reflux on barium swallow the PE tube group
El-Serag et al,11 2001 Case-control 9900 Presence of sinusitis and other upper airway 4.2% sinusitis in GERD group vs 1.4% sinusitis 3b
diseases in patients with or without in the non-GERD group
a diagnosis of GERD
Phipps et al,12 2000 Prospective cohort 30 Percentage of CRS patients with GERD 63% of CRS patients had GERD by dual- 4
channel pH monitor
Contencin et al,13 1991 Prospective 31 Presence of nasopharyngeal reflux in Significantly more time spent with pH below 2b
case-control patients with sinonasal disease vs control threshold in the sinonasal disease group,
P<.00005
Megale et al,14 2006 Retrospective 45 Percentage of patients with GERD and 83.87% improvement in chronic nasal 4
case series sinonasal complaints who respond to obstruction, and 85.7% in nasal secretions
antireflux therapy
Bothwell et al,15 1999 Retrospective cohort 28 Avoidance of surgery if treated for GERD 83% of patients in study successfully avoided 4
surgery
Abbreviations: CRS, chronic rhinosinusitis; EBM, evidence-based medicine; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; PE, pressure equalization.
Reflux in Sinusitis
985
patients’ sinusitis symptoms. Their study is hampered by the lack of a control group.
Contencin and Narcy13 evaluated 31 children for the presence of NPR by performing
24-hour nasopharyngeal pH studies. The study group consisted of 13 children with
recurrent or chronic rhinitis or rhinopharyngitis. The control group of 18 children
was free of any nasopharyngeal disease. The study group was found to have signifi-
cantly more time in the nasopharynx with a pH below the threshold (pH less than 6).
Because a single-channel pH monitor was used in this study, it was impossible to
determine whether some of the reflux events were nasopharyngeal reflux of gastric
contents or artifact.
Other pediatric studies looked directly at the results of treating reflux in the presence
of sinonasal disease. Megale and colleagues14 retrospectively looked at a cohort of
children diagnosed with GERD by single-probe pH monitor and history. This study
evaluated patients’ response to treatment with antireflux interventions including pro-
kinetic agents, proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, and reflux surgeries. Therapy for
GERD significantly improved the symptoms of chronic nasal obstruction and nasal
secretion by 83.87% and 85.7%, respectively. Unfortunately, about half the number
of the treated patients with these complaints also received antihistamine therapy at
the same time as the antireflux medication, therefore confounding the result. This
confounder, in addition to the lack of a control group in the study design, greatly
weakens the strength of the results. Bothwell and colleagues15 looked retrospectively
at a cohort of pediatric patients who had met the criteria to undergo functional endo-
scopic sinus surgery (ESS) for CRS. It was found that in patients treated with a variety
of different antireflux therapies, sinus surgery could be avoided in 89% of patients.
Evidence from Studies Looking at Associated Sinonasal Disorders

Studies looking at the relationship between reflux and other inflammatory sinonasal
disorders also allude to the role of reflux in creating, or contributing to, an environment
conducive to the presence of sinusitis (Table 2). Loehrl and colleagues16 sought to
look at the relationship between extraesophageal reflux (EER) and VR, which was
defined by the symptom of nasal congestion for at least 3 months without any signs
of current infection, pregnancy, nasal polyps, or allergy. The study included 3 groups:
patients with VR without EER, patients with VR with EER (by history and physical
examination), and normal controls without VR. The amount of reflux was documented
by 4 sensor pH probes in all groups. The amount of autonomic dysfunction present in
each group was also measured using the composite autonomic scoring scale (CASS).
The group with VR with EER by history and physical examination had a higher CASS
score than both the VR-free control group and the VR-alone group. The investigators
further confirmed the presence of EER via a 4-sensor pH study, finding that the VR-
with-EER group had nasopharyngeal reflux events present in 9 of 10 patients. This
study shows that EER can change the environment in the sinonasal cavity, in this
case by altering the body’s autonomic response.
Other investigators have looked at the relationship between the patient complaint of
PND and reflux. Wise and colleagues17 looked at the relationship between PND,
defined as an increased awareness of the movement of the pharyngeal mucus
blanket, and LPR in a cohort of 68 patients. These patients were first asked to
complete both the validated SNOT-20 questionnaire and the modified Reflux Symp-
toms Index questionnaire, and then underwent 24-hour pH testing with a triple-
sensor pH probe. The pH probe had sensors at the nasopharynx, hypopharynx
(1 cm above the upper esophageal sphincter), and distal esophagus. The investigators
found that in patients with nasopharyngeal reflux events with a pH less than 5, there
were significantly more PND symptoms reported on the SNOT-20 and the modified
Table 2
Studies linking reflux to related sinonasal disorders

Loehrl et al,16 2002 Case-control 30 Prevalence of autonomic dysfunction in VR Significantly increased autonomic 2b
patients with or without EER and normal dysfunction in VR patients with EER
controls compared with those without EER
Wise et al,17 2006 Cohort 68 Association between PND symptoms and the Significantly more PND symptoms in patients 4
presence of NPR and LPR by 3-channel pH with NPR and LPR
probe
Vaezi et al,18 2010 Randomized 75 Improvement in PND symptoms following Significantly greater percentage 1b
controlled trial treatment with lansoprazole improvement in the treatment arm vs
control
Abbreviations: EER, extraesophageal reflux; LPR, laryngopharyngeal reflux; NPR, nasopharyngeal reflux; PND, postnasal drip; VR, vasomotor rhinitis.
Reflux in Sinusitis
987
Reflux Symptom Index survey, compared with patients without reflux in this area.
Patients with LPR also had more PND symptoms on the SNOT-20 survey when
compared with patients without LPR.
Vaezi and colleagues18 asked the question of whether directly treating reflux would
improve patients’ PND symptoms. To answer this question they performed a double-
blinded study on 75 patients with complaints of PND without any signs of chronic
sinusitis or allergy, randomizing them to either twice-daily lansoprazole or placebo.
Patients completed validated sinus disease questionnaires (SNOT-20 and RSOM-
31) and the Quality Of Life in Reflux And Dyspepsia questionnaires (QOLRAD) and
underwent ambulatory pH and impedance monitoring before the institution of therapy.
This pretreatment pH monitoring was performed in only 65% of participants but in
equal amounts for each of the study groups. The primary outcome measure was
a visual analog scale describing the percentage resolution of the PND sensation.
Patients were then followed up after 8 and 16 weeks of therapy. Patients given lanso-
prazole therapy had a 3.12-fold greater (at 8 weeks of therapy) and 3.5-fold greater
(at 16 weeks of therapy) chance of improving compared with controls. At 16 weeks
the median improvement in the treatment arm was 50% compared with 5% in the
placebo arm. In addition, there was a statistically significant improvement in the
SNOT-20 and QOLRAD outcomes for the treatment arm. Of note, no link was reported
between the presence of reflux on pH study and the response to treatment. The tech-
nique used, however, only assessed the presence of reflux into the esophagus and not
into the nasopharynx. The investigators state that the study results do support a role
for reflux in causing PND symptoms in this group of patients, but comment that alter-
native causes for the benefit seen may come from possible intrinsic anti-inflammatory
properties of the PPI drugs and a putative decrease in nonacid reflux created by PPI
drugs.18
Evidence from Adults with CRS

Several studies have looked directly at the relationship between reflux and CRS
(Table 3). Ulualp and colleagues19 evaluated a diverse group of patients with upper
airway and sinonasal complaints, and found a statistically higher incidence of hypo-
pharyngeal acid reflux events in patients with both persistent CRS after sinus surgery
and posterior laryngitis (4 of 6 patients, 67%) compared with healthy controls (7 of 34,
21%) or with patients with CRS without posterior laryngitis (4 of 12, 33%). There was
no difference between the distal and proximal esophageal reflux parameters between
these groups. The investigators concluded that LPR may play a role in a subset of
patients with CRS, and posterior laryngitis may be the common thread among
reflux-induced aerodigestive tract disorders. The small number of sinusitis patients
is a drawback of this study. Ulualp’s group20 also looked directly at a cohort of 11
patients with medically refractory CRS, and found a higher prevalence of pharyngeal
acid reflux compared with a group of 11 healthy controls (7 of 11, 64% vs 2 of 11,
18%). A study by Jecker and colleagues21 evaluated 20 patients with CRS who had
previously failed surgical therapy, and compared them with a group of normal
controls. In these patients dual-sensor pH readings were obtained 6 weeks after the
patients’ revision sinus surgery. The CRS patients had a higher number of reflux
events and percentage of time with pH spent below 4 in comparison with the control
group. These results, interestingly, were not found in the hypopharynx. The investiga-
tors concluded that there was a link between GERD and CRS but not between EER
and CRS. This study was hampered by its small size and heterogeneous groups.
Ozmen and colleagues22 conducted a prospective case-control study with 33
patients recruited for ESS because of CRS unresponsive to medical therapy, and
Table 3
Adult studies linking CRS to reflux

Ulualp et al,19 1999 Case-control 18 Presence of proximal reflux by 3-channel Higher percentage of reflux in CRS 2b
pH probe in patients who failed sinus patients with laryngitis and CRS
surgery patients alone compared with controls
Ulualp et al,20 1999 Case-control 22 Presence of proximal reflux by 3-channel Higher percentage of reflux in CRS 2b
pH probe in patients with medically patients compared with controls
refractory CRS
Jecker et al,21 2005 Case-control 40 Presence of LPR or GERD by dual-channel Significantly more GER events in the CRS 2b
pH probe patients than in controls, but not in
hypopharynx
Ozmen et al,22 2008 Case-control 52 Presence of LPR by dual-channel pH More pharyngeal acid events in CRS 2b
probe and presence of pepsin in middle group; 88% vs 55%, pepsin was found
meatus aspirate in most patients with reflux
DelGaudio,4 2005 Case-control 68 Presence of NPR, reflux at UES or GERD by Significantly more reflux events in the NP, 2b
3-channel pH probe UES, and LES in the CRS group
compared with successful treatment
and controls
Wong et al,23 2004 Cohort 37 Presence of acid reflux into the Found nasopharyngeal reflux in only 2 of 4
nasopharynx by 4-channel pH probe in 37 patients (5%); GER was found in 12
CRS patients failing medical therapy of 37 patients (32.4%)
DiBaise et al,24 2002 Cohort 11 Response to twice daily PPI therapy in Modest symptom improvement 2b
patients with CRS
Reflux in Sinusitis
Pincus et al,25 2006 Cohort 15 Response to daily PPI therapy in patients Modest symptom improvement 4
with medically and surgically refractory
CRS
Abbreviations: GER, gastroesophageal reflux; LES, lower esophageal sphincter; NP, nasopharynx; PPI, proton-pump inhibitor; UES, upper esophageal sphincter.
989
compared them with a group of 20 patients without CRS who were to undergo sinus
and nasal surgery for endonasal anatomic variations (concha bullosa or other endo-
nasal deformities). Using a dual-channel pH probe, they found that there was a higher
incidence of pharyngeal acid reflux events in patients with CRS (29 of 33, 88%) when
compared with controls (11 of 20, 55%). This difference was found to be statistically
significant. In addition, they looked at the relationship between the presence of pepsin
in sinonasal tissue and the presence of LPR as determined by the pH studies. To
determine the presence of pepsin in the sinonasal tissues, 3 mL of saline was admin-
istered into the middle meatus of each patient under endoscopic guidance. The
collected fluid was then subjected to a pepsin assay. In all patients with pepsin
present LPR was documented by pH study, with only 3 patients with LPR having
a negative pepsin assay. Of note, 50% of the control patients were found to have
pepsin in the middle meatus by the pepsin assay. The investigators suggest that
pepsin may be a good indicator for the presence of LPR and may play an etiologic
role in the relationship between LPR and CRS, given that pepsin activity can be
present at pH levels greater than 4.22
DelGaudio4 looked at a cohort of 38 patients with a history of CRS who had failed
surgical therapy and had persistent CRS symptoms and endoscopic signs of inflam-
mation, and compared them with a group of patients who had undergone ESS and
were symptom-free for at least 1 year postoperatively, and with a control group with
no history of CRS or sinus surgery. Using 3-channel pH probes, significantly more
nasopharyngeal reflux (NPR) was found in the persistent CRS group than in the 2
control groups, at pH less than 4 (39% vs 7%) and pH less than 5 (76% vs 24%).
The CRS patients also had statistically significantly more reflux above the upper
esophageal sphincter as well as in the distal esophagus in comparison with the pooled
control groups. In addition, the difference between the groups increased further when
the CRS patients with frontal sinus disease alone were excluded from the analysis.
Wong and colleagues23 evaluated patients with CRS refractory to medical treatment
and were candidates for ESS. This study evaluated 40 patients and tested them using
4-channel pH probes, including a nasopharyngeal sensor. Little nasopharyngeal reflux
was found to be present in this group of patients. In comparison with the study by
DelGaudio, whose study group consisted of surgically refractory CRS patients, the
study group in the Wong study consisted of medically refractory CRS patients only.
This group would most closely correlate to the successful ESS control group in the
DelGaudio study, which had much less nasopharyngeal reflux than the study group.
In addition, the Wong study only evaluated for pH less than 4, and not pH less than
5, thereby likely missing a substantial number of nasopharyngeal reflux events.
EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
Evidence for the value of GERD treatment in improving CRS comes from studies of
associated disorders such as that performed by Vaezi and colleagues18 for PND,
and from pediatric studies such as those performed by Bothwell and colleagues15
and Megale and colleagues14 already discussed. There are also a limited number of
studies looking at the efficacy of GERD treatment in adults with CRS. DiBaise and
colleagues24 performed a prospective study on 11 patients who had failed both
medical and surgical therapy for CRS, comparing this cohort with a group of GERD
patients without CRS. All subjects underwent 2-channel pH studies and obtained
baseline symptom severity scores. A similar percentage of abnormal pH tests
between the 2 groups (82% in the CRS group and 79% in the GERD group) was found.
The CRS group was then begun on twice-daily omeprazole and was reassessed
Reflux in Sinusitis 991
symptomatically at 4, 8, and 12 weeks of therapy. There was modest improvement in

patients’ CRS symptoms, as well as overall satisfaction, with treatment. Dramatic
improvement in CRS symptoms in this study was infrequent. Though encouraging,
this study does lack a control group and is hampered by small numbers.
In a study by Pincus and colleagues,25 the prevalence of GERD in patients with
medically and surgically refractory CRS was evaluated by pH study, followed by treat-
ment with PPIs. The main outcome measure was symptoms severity as recorded by
phone interview after 1 month of treatment. Twenty-five of the 30 patients who under-
went pH-probe evaluation had reflux. Fourteen of 15 patients who completed the
course of PPIs had improvement in their symptoms. These improved patients included
7 who experienced a complete or near complete resolution in their symptoms. Again
this study was an uncontrolled cohort study, and further study looking at the value of
treatment of GERD for CRS is necessary.
SUMMARY
There is moderate evidence linking reflux to CRS. The means whereby this relationship
takes place is likely direct reflux of gastric contents into the nasopharynx and nasal
cavity. There is evidence for the use of reflux therapy in the treatment of medically
and surgically refractory CRS. The strongest evidence for the use of PPI comes not
from the treatment of CRS but from the treatment of PND via the randomized
controlled study performed by Vaezi and colleagues18 (Evidence-Based Medicine
[EBM] Grade 1b). Overall EBM is Grade B.
REFERENCES
1. Lindstrom DR, Wallace J, Loehrl TA, et al. Nissen fundoplication surgery for extra-
esophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux (EER). Laryngoscope
2002;112(10):1762–5.
2. Ylitalo R, Ramel S, Hammarlund B, et al. Prevalence of extraesophageal reflux in
patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2004;131(1):29–33.
3. Benninger MS, Ferguson BJ, Hadley JA, et al. Adult chronic rhinosinusitis: defini-
tions, diagnosis, epidemiology, and pathophysiology. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2003;129(Suppl 3):S1–32.
4. DelGaudio JM. Direct nasopharyngeal reflux of gastric acid is a contributing
factor in refractory chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2005;115(6):946–57.
5. Delehaye E, Dore MP, Bozzo C, et al. Correlation between nasal mucociliary
clearance time and gastroesophageal reflux disease: our experience on 50
patients. Auris Nasus Larynx 2009;36(2):157–61.
6. Lodi U, Harding SM, Coghlan HC, et al. Autonomic regulation in asthmatics with
gastroesophageal reflux. Chest 1997;111(1):65–70.
7. Wong IW, Rees G, Greiff L, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and chronic
sinusitis: in search of an esophageal-nasal reflex. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;
24(4):255–9.
8. Koc C, Arikan OK, Atasoy P, et al. Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori in patients
with nasal polyps: a preliminary report. Laryngoscope 2004;114(11):1941–4.
9. Morinaka S, Ichimiya M, Nakamura H. Detection of Helicobacter pylori in nasal
and maxillary sinus specimens from patients with chronic sinusitis. Laryngoscope
2003;113(9):1557–63.
10. Carr MM, Poje CP, Ehrig D, et al. Incidence of reflux in young children undergoing
adenoidectomy. Laryngoscope 2001;111(12):2170–2.
11. El-Serag HB, Gilger M, Kuebeler M, et al. Extraesophageal associations of

gastroesophageal reflux disease in children without neurologic defects. Gastro-
enterology 2001;121(6):1294–9.
12. Phipps CD, Wood WE, Gibson WS, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux contributing to
chronic sinus disease in children: a prospective analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 2000;126(7):831–6.
13. Contencin P, Narcy P. Nasopharyngeal pH monitoring in infants and children with
chronic rhinopharyngitis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1991;22(3):249–56.
14. Megale SR, Scanavini AB, Andrade EC, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease:
its importance in ear, nose, and throat practice. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
2006;70(1):81–8.
15. Bothwell MR, Parsons DS, Talbot A, et al. Outcome of reflux therapy on pediatric
chronic sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;121(3):255–62.
16. Loehrl TA, Smith TL, Darling RJ, et al. Autonomic dysfunction, vasomotor rhinitis,
and extraesophageal manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2002;126(4):382–7.
17. Wise SK, Wise JC, DelGaudio JM. Association of nasopharyngeal and laryngo-
pharyngeal reflux with postnasal drip symptomatology in patients with and
without rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol 2006;20(3):283–9.
18. Vaezi MF, Hagaman DD, Slaughter JC, et al. Proton pump inhibitor therapy
improves symptoms in postnasal drainage. Gastroenterology 2010;139(6):
1887–1893.e1 [quiz: e11].
19. Ulualp SO, Toohill RJ, Shaker R. Pharyngeal acid reflux in patients with single and
multiple otolaryngologic disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;121(6):
725–30.
20. Ulualp SO, Toohill RJ, Hoffmann R, et al. Possible relationship of gastroesopha-
gopharyngeal acid reflux with pathogenesis of chronic sinusitis. Am J Rhinol
1999;13(3):197–202.
21. Jecker P, Orloff LA, Wohlfeil M, et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD),
extraesophageal reflux (EER) and recurrent chronic rhinosinusitis. Eur Arch Oto-
rhinolaryngol 2006;263(7):664–7.
22. Ozmen S, Yucel OT, Sinici I, et al. Nasal pepsin assay and pH monitoring in
chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2008;118(5):890–4.
23. Wong IW, Omari TI, Myers JC, et al. Nasopharyngeal pH monitoring in chronic
sinusitis patients using a novel 4 channel probe. Laryngoscope 2004;114(9):
1582–5.
24. DiBaise JK, Olusola BF, Huerter JV, et al. Role of GERD in chronic resistant sinus-
itis: a prospective, open label, pilot trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97(4):843–50.
25. Pincus RL, Kim HH, Silvers S, et al. A study of the link between gastric reflux and
chronic sinusitis in adults. Ear Nose Throat J 2006;85(3):174–8.
Balloon Catheter Dilation in Rhinology
Pete S. Batra, MD, FACS
KEYWORDS
Chronic rhinosinusitis Frontal sinusitis Recurrent acute rhinosinusitis Evidence
Balloon dilation Balloon catheter Technology Sinus ostia dilation
KEY POINTS
The following points list the level of evidence as based on Oxford Center for Evidence-Based
Medicine. Additional critical points are provided and points here are expanded at the conclu-
sion of this article.
Numerous studies have evaluated the usefulness of balloon catheter technology for
surgical management of adult CRS, with overarching existing data deemed to be level 4.
One study reporting the use of BCD for frontal sinus disease provides level 2b evidence,
suggesting possible usefulness of the technology for this indication.
Level 4 evidence is available for the use of BCD in the office and intensive care unit setting,
although both may represent potentially important applications of balloon devices.
The overall recommendation is grade C for use of BCD for paranasal sinus inflammatory
disease, but well-controlled randomized trials are needed.
BACKGROUND ON CHRONIC RHINOSINUSITIS
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) represents a clinical disorder characterized by inflamma-

tion of the mucosa of the nose and paranasal sinuses of 12 weeks’ duration.1 A Euro-
pean Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyposis clinically defines CRS by 2
or more symptoms, 1 of which is nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal
discharge with or without facial pain/pressure and/or reduction or loss of smell.2
Symptomatology is supported by endoscopic evidence of mucopurulence, edema,
or polyps, and/or computed tomography (CT), presence of mucosal thickening, or
air-fluid levels in the sinuses. CRS is one of the most common chronic medical
Disclosures: Medtronic (research grant), American Rhinologic Society (research grant).

Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Comprehensive Skull Base Program,
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390,
USA
E-mail address: pete.batra@utsouthwestern.edu

994 Batra
conditions in the United States, afflicting approximately 31 million Americans.3 The

illness accounts for 18 million to 22 million office visits annually, resulting in an esti-
mated $6 billion in direct and indirect health care expenditures.4 CRS not only causes
physical symptoms but also results in significant functional and emotional impairment,
with quality of life scores similar to those of patients with other chronic debilitating
illnesses, including congestive heart failure, angina, and back pain.5 The pathophysi-
ologic mechanisms resulting in CRS remain elusive. A variety of host and environmental
factors have been implicated, including derangements in innate and adaptive immunity,
ciliary dysfunction, inhalant allergies, infectious agents (viral, bacterial, and/or fungal),
superantigens, biofilms, and osteitis.
Medical therapy remains the cornerstone in the overall management schema of
patients with CRS. This therapy typically entails various oral and topical agents,
such as antibiotics, steroids, antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, saline
irrigations, and mucolytics.
Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) represents the main surgical strategy for
management of medically recalcitrant CRS. FESS is a minimally invasive, mucosal-
sparing surgical technique that is designed to achieve 1 or more of the following goals:
1. Open the sinuses to facilitate ventilation and drainage
2. Remove polyps and/or osteitic bone fragments to reduce the inflammatory load
3. Enlarge the sinus ostia to achieve optimal instillation of topical therapies
4. Obtain bacterial and fungal cultures and tissue for histopathology
FESS has been shown to be effective in improving symptoms and quality of life
(QOL) in adult patients with CRS.6 A recent multi-institutional prospective trial showed
improvement in QOL in both medically and surgically treated patients with CRS;
however, the FESS group experienced significantly more improvement in disease-
specific QOL, reduction in need for systemic antibiotics and steroids, and decrease
in missed work/school days.7
OVERVIEW OF BALLOON CATHETER TECHNOLOGIES

Balloon Sinuplasty TM
The use of balloon catheters for frontal sinus dilation was initially described by Lanza8
in 1993. He used Fogarty balloon catheters under endoscopic guidance in post-FESS
patients to achieve temporary ventilation and drainage of the frontal recess. In 2002,
California-based engineers started the process of adapting cardiac catheters to
perform paranasal sinus balloon dilation.9 Balloon catheter technology cleared the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) pathway in April 2005, being launched
as balloon sinuplasty (Acclarent, Inc., Menlo Park, CA).10 In contrast with traditional
balloons that are compliant and conform to regional anatomy, the new device is semi-
rigid and noncompliant, with the ability to displace adjacent bone and tissue on infla-
tion. The basic premise of balloon catheter dilation (BCD) is the Seldinger technique,
with initial access being gained by endoscopic placement of a guide catheter. A flex-
ible guide is introduced through the guide catheter and its position in the targeted
sinus confirmed by fluoroscopy, transillumination, or image guidance. The balloon
catheter is then advanced over the guidewire and gradually inflated to dilate the
obstructed sinus ostium.10
The initial cadaver study on BCD was presented at the annual American Rhinologic
Society meeting in 2005.11 Technical feasibility and safety were evaluated by dilation
of 31 sinus ostia (9 maxillary, 11 sphenoid, 11 frontal) in 6 cadaver heads. BCD
successfully dilated all 31 sinuses and did not result in adjacent skull base or orbital
BCD in Rhinology 995
injury in any cases. The investigators posited that balloon technology also seemed to
impart less mucosal trauma than standard endoscopic instruments, although no
comparative analysis was performed in the study. This work was followed by the first
patient trial on BCD in 10 patients with persistent CRS after failed medical therapy.12 A
total of 18 sinuses were dilated, with 8 of 10 patients undergoing concurrent ethmoi-
dectomy. All sinuses were successfully dilated without adverse events, though the
investigators noted that the maxillary sinus was the most difficult to cannulate given
the position of the natural ostium relative to the uncinate process. This study served
as proof of concept in a limited number of patients without any follow-up period.
The impact on the underlying disease process was unclear.
LacriCATH
The LacriCATH system (Quest Medical, Inc., Allen, TX) is an established balloon
device used for dilation of the lacrimal outflow system for chronic epiphora.13 Citardi
and Kanowitz14 performed endoscopic paranasal sinus dissection in 3 cadaver heads
using conventional FESS instrumentation concurrently with the lacrimal balloon for
BCD. Frontal recess dissection was successfully performed in all 6 sinuses with
FESS instruments and BCD, and all 6 sphenoid sinuses were also successfully dilated.
It was not feasible to reliably pass the balloon through the maxillary natural ostium,
with only 3 of 6 being successfully dilated with this technique. This study provided
proof of concept in a cadaver model, precluding extrapolation of the intervention in
patients with CRS. The study highlighted the potential technical limitation of BCD of
the maxillary sinus in patients with an intact uncinate process.
FinESS
FinESS (Functional Infundibular Endoscopic Sinus System [Entellus Medical, Inc.,
Maple Grove, MN]) obtained FDA clearance in April 2008 and was launched at the
annual American Academy of Otolaryngology meeting later that year.10 The transantral
dilation system uses a flexible 0.5-mm endoscope and dual-channel cannula to
localize the maxillary sinus ostia via the canine fossa approach. BCD of the maxillary
ostium and ethmoid infundibulum is then performed under endoscopic visualization.
The initial data on this device were reported in a multicenter study (Balloon Remodel-
ing Antrostomy Therapy [BREATHE] I) assessing outcomes and safety in patients with
CRS.15 Fifty-five of 58 (94.8%) maxillary ostia were successfully treated, with 97%
being performed under local anesthesia with or without minimal sedation. Mean Sino-
nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-20) scores had statistically improved at 6 months, with
patency in 95.8% by CT imaging. Follow-up data showed sustained improvement in
all 4 domains on SNOT-20 at 1 year.16 These 2 studies provide a proof of clinical
concept of this technology. The technology may be applicable to patients with limited
disease focused at the maxillary infundibulum; however, broader application to the
larger subset of CRS is not afforded by the data.
Given the paucity of controlled studies with a comparator group, the role of the various
balloon catheter devices in the management of CRS and its subtypes remains to be
elucidated. Thus, definitive recommendations on how to evaluate patients thought
suitable for BCD are not possible. Nonetheless, the available database shows multi-
tude of potential applications in patients with paranasal sinus inflammatory disease.
Studies have reported on both adult and pediatric CRS refractory to maximal medical
therapy.17–24 Patients with limited sinus disease have also been evaluated.15,16
996 Batra
Several studies have explored the usefulness of BCD in frontal sinus disease.25–31
Studies have also evaluated the use of BCD in the office and intensive care unit
(ICU) settings.32–34 The evidence base available for the various applications is evalu-
ated later.
EVIDENCE-BASED SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Adult Medically Refractory CRS
Multiple retrospective case series have reported on the usefulness of BCD on medi-
cally refractory adult CRS. The present analysis focuses on the salient studies to high-
light the current state of the evidence.
CLEAR study
The initial large-scale investigation, dubbed the Clinical Evaluation to Confirm Safety
and Efficacy of Sinuplasty in the Paranasal Sinuses (CLEAR) study, reported on 109
patients with nonpolypoid CRS unresponsive to medical management undergoing
planned FESS.17 Follow-up evaluations were performed at 1, 2, 12, and 24 weeks,
with main outcome measures being ostial patency, SNOT-20 scores, and global rating
of improvement. Overall, 52% of patients underwent concomitant ethmoidectomy, or
so-called hybrid procedures. The mean Lund-Mackay scores for the balloon-only and
hybrid groups were 6.1 and 10.4, respectively.
Most procedures were performed uneventfully without any cases of cerebrospinal
fluid (CSF) leaks, orbital injury, or epistaxis requiring packing. BCD seemed to be tech-
nically feasible, although there were 12 device malfunctions. Endoscopic sinus ostial
patency rates at 24 weeks were 91% for maxillary sinus, 82% at frontal sinus, and
60% for sphenoid sinus. A significant number of frontal (17%) and sphenoid (39%)
sinuses were not evaluable because of inadequate postoperative endoscopic visual-
ization. A statistically significant decrease in SNOT-20 scores was noted for both the
balloon and hybrid groups: scores for the patients who had balloons decreased from
2.14 to 1.27, whereas the hybrid scores improved from 2.42 to 1.02.
One-year follow-up data were reported on 66 patients from the original cohort.18
The remainder was excluded from the analysis because of attrition, loss to follow-
up, and loss of study sites. Postoperative ostial patency by endoscopy and CT was
93.5% for maxillary sinus, 91.9% for frontal sinus, and 86.1% for sphenoid sinus.
Mean SNOT-20 scores for balloon-only and hybrid subsets improved to 0.95 and
0.87, respectively. Additional 2-year follow-up data were published on 65 of the
patients.19 The SNOT-20 scores for the balloon-only and hybrid groups decreased
to 1.09 and 0.66, respectively. The Lund-Mackay scores improved from 5.7 to 1.8
and from 12.1 to 3.3 for balloon-only and hybrid patients, respectively. Overall, 85%
of patients reported symptom improvement, with 15% remaining the same and 0%
worse.
Many important observations can be gleaned from the CLEAR series. It attests to
the technical feasibility and safety of the balloon to achieve sinus ostia dilatation.
Further, 1-year and 2-year follow-up studies showed the potential for reasonable ostial
patency over this time period. However, many questions remain unanswered. The
patient cohort for these studies was not clearly defined; moreover, a uniform manage-
ment algorithm was not applied to tailor the medical and surgical therapy. Thus, it is
unclear whether the data can be generalized to all patients with CRS.
The CLEAR study serves as a representative example of a single-arm, uncontrolled,
observational study that has been historically accepted in rhinology to justify surgical
interventions, including FESS. However, the lack of a comparison group limits mean-
ingful interpretation of the results; it precludes any efficacy claims relative to FESS.
Comparison of the mean SNOT-20 scores for the balloon-only and hybrid groups
offers some insights.35 The balloon-only group improved from a baseline of 2.14 to
0.99 and 1.09 at 1 year and 2 years, respectively. In contrast, the hybrid group started
at higher mean SNOT-20 score of 2.42, improving to 0.68 and 0.64 at 1 year and 2
years, respectively. This finding suggests that patients undergoing concurrent ethmoi-
dectomy not only have higher baseline SNOT-20 scores but also derive greater benefit
from surgery. Although the data were intended to be interpreted in this manner, they
highlight the potential usefulness of direct comparative trials to better understand the
role of BCD compared with FESS.
BCD outcomes: retrospective study from a multicenter registry

In the largest retrospective study to date, Levine and colleagues20 reported outcomes
of BCD on 1036 patients from a multicenter registry. BCD was used in 3276 sinuses,
with a mean of 3.2 sinuses per patient. Sinonasal symptoms improved in 95.2%, were
unchanged in 3.8%, and were worse in 1.0% of patients. Postoperative infections
were significantly less frequent and less severe compared to before surgery. No major
adverse events were attributable to balloons, although 2 CSF leaks were documented
in patients undergoing concurrent ethmoidectomy. Six cases had minor bleeding
requiring packing or cautery. Perhaps the most important observation that stems
from the data is the safety profile of BCD. However, the study does make it possible
to reliably assess the impact of BCD on CRS. The data are pooled across 27 sites with
no standardization of medical treatment or indications for surgery. The starting burden
of disease was not defined by endoscopy and/or CT. The use of subjective symptom
improvement as the primary endpoint and lack of validated outcome measures
prevents robust assessment of BCD on the underlying disease process.
BCD versus FESS: comparative retrospective analysis

Friedman and colleagues21 performed a comparative retrospective analysis of
prospectively collected data in 70 patients undergoing BCD versus FESS. Inclusion
criteria included recurrent rhinosinusitis in patients with either a persistently abnormal
CT after 4 weeks of continuous therapy or an abnormal CT during treatment, with
posttreatment normalization and 3 or more recurrences per year. Exclusion criteria
included Lund-McKay scores greater than 12, significant polyposis, osteoneogenesis,
or systemic disease. Thirty-five patients in each treatment arm were assessed by
SNOT-20 scores, global patient assessment, postoperative narcotic usage, and
cost at a minimum of 3 months follow-up. The SNOT-20 scores improved from 2.8
to 0.78 for the balloon group and 2.7 to 1.29 from the FESS group, showing clinically
and statistically significant improvement in both groups. Patient satisfaction was
higher and narcotic usage was lower in the BCD group. The average cost of BCD
($12,657) was less than that of FESS ($14,471); the lower charges were attributed
to shorter operative and recovery times and reduced need for general anesthesia
with BCD.
The results may suggest the superiority of BCD compared with FESS in this
comparative study. However, closer analysis of the data shows that the study repre-
sents a highly selectively patient sample that did not undergo matching or randomiza-
tion. The patients decided on their surgical intervention, thus likely influencing the
symptom and satisfaction scores. Furthermore, the study did not report on ostial
patency for this patient group, acknowledging the inherent limitations in adequate
endoscopic visualization in patients with an intact uncinate process. The short
follow-up period in a chronic inflammatory process that often spans years is an
998 Batra
additional drawback that precludes meaningful interpretation of the data. In addition,

the operative charges are an estimation at best.
Pediatric Medically Refractory CRS
BCD for medically recalcitrant CRS
Ramadan22 reported initial data on technical feasibility and safety of BCD in children.22
Thirty children with medically recalcitrant CRS underwent BCD; concurrent adenoi-
dectomy was performed in 13 patients (43%). The procedures were technical feasible
in 51 of 56 sinuses (91%) with no complications attributable to BCD. The feasibility rate
was 98% in normal sinuses, decreasing to 60% in hypoplastic sinuses. The average
fluoroscopy time was 18 seconds per sinus; mean fluoroscopy exposure was 0.18
mGy. The preliminary data again attest to the safety of BCD. They suggest that,
although technically feasible in children, the inherent limitations posed by the smaller,
especially hypoplastic, sinuses result in a lower cannulation rate in children. The study
provides proof of concept in pediatric patients with CRS. The short-term or long-term
impact on the underlying disease process is unclear.
BCD and/or adenoidectomy for CRS
In a follow-up study, Ramadan and Terrell24 presented experience on 49 pediatric
patients with CRS undergoing BCD and/or adenoidectomy with postoperative follow-
up of 1 year. The groups were matched except for age, with the adenoidectomy-alone
group being statistically younger (4.8 years) than the balloon group (7.7 years). The
comparative groups included adenoidectomy alone19 or BCD30; 17 in the latter group
also underwent adenoidectomy. Symptom improvement, defined as a decrease of
0.5 or more on Sinonasal-5 (SN-5) questionnaire, was seen in 24 (80%) and 10
(52.6%) in the balloon-alone and adenoidectomy-alone groups, respectively. These
data suggest the potential usefulness of BCD in pediatric patients. However, similarly
to the study by Friedman and colleagues,21 the 2 groups represent highly selective
samples without any attempt at randomization. Given that 17 of the 30 in the balloon
group underwent concomitant adenoidectomy, the impact of BCD on the underlying
disease process and SN-5 scores is unclear. The intervention of adenoidectomy in
both groups confounds the ability to interpret the findings.
BCD in children with CRS: prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study
A subsequent prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study evaluated the efficacy
of BCD in 32 children with CRS.23 Concurrent adenoidectomy was performed in 15
patients. Twenty-four patients (75%) completed the 52 weeks follow-up. BCD was
successful in 56 of 63 (89%) sinuses. Of the 7 failed sinuses, 3 were hypoplastic maxil-
lary sinuses, 3 were sphenoid sinuses, and 1 was a frontal sinus. The SN-5 score
improved from 4.9 at baseline to 2.95 at 52 weeks. Overall, improvement was signif-
icant in 50%, moderate in 29%, and mild in 8%. One had no improvement, whereas 2
worsened in the postoperative period. Although this study makes a compelling case
for BCD in pediatric patients, the impact of BCD is difficult to discern, given that 15
(46.9%) had simultaneous adenoidectomy and 6 (18.9%) had concurrent ethmoidec-
tomy. The potential beneficial effect of adenoidectomy in pediatric patients with CRS
cannot be understated. The adenoid may serve as a reservoir of potentially pathogenic
bacteria; the overall adenoid bacterial isolation rate has been noted to be as high as
79%, with isolate rate increasing with sinusitis grade.36 A recent meta-analysis of
adenoidectomy in medically refractory CRS showed improvement of sinusitis symp-
toms or outcomes in 69.3% of the patients.37 Given its simplicity, effectiveness, and
low-risk profile, adenoidectomy likely represents a first-line therapy for uncomplicated
pediatric CRS. Direct comparative trials of adenoidectomy, BCD, and FESS are
required to better understand the role of balloons in the management algorithm of

pediatric CRS.
Limited Disease
Two studies using the FinESS system have explored the usefulness of BCD for limited
disease focused in the maxillary sinus with or without involvement of the ethmoid
infundibulum.15,16 As mentioned earlier, the data has shown technical feasibility in
94.8%, with improvement in SNOT-20 scores at 6 months and 1 year. These data
have provided proof of concept for the new device, suggesting potential usefulness
in patients with limited disease. However, careful evaluation of the BREATHE I
6-month data shows that they mirror many of the deficiencies evident in the CLEAR
study.17 The patient population for the study group in not clearly defined. CT imaging,
showing an air-fluid level or maxillary ostial or infundibular narrowing with greater than
or equal to 2-mm maxillary mucosal thickening served as the inclusionary criteria;
however, the degree of maxillary opacification or level of infundibular narrowing
were not objectively characterized beyond the point of inclusion. The medical therapy
was inconsistently applied across the patient group. Furthermore, given that 2 simul-
taneous interventions (transantral approach, maxillary ostia BCD) were used, the
impact of each is difficult to discern from the study design. Nonetheless, the data
suggest that this may be a potential option for limited disease, especially in the office
setting, and deserves additional investigation.
Frontal Sinus Disease

BCD has been proposed as a potential minimally invasive alternative to endoscopic
frontal sinusotomy (EFS) for frontal sinus disease. Several studies have evaluated
the usefulness of balloons in this regard (Table 1).25–32 Khalid and colleagues26 per-
formed frontal recess BCD in 8 cadaver heads to evaluate the patterns of fracture
of bony lamellae and change in frontal recess dimensions using preintervention and
postintervention endoscopy and CT. This, in turn, was compared with the degree of
change seen with EFS. BCD resulted in statistically less change in mean coronal
Table 1
Evidence base of studies on BCD for frontal sinus disease
Study EBM
Author Indication N Design Level Outcome
Catalano and Payne,25 Chronic frontal sinusitis 20 Retrospective 4 Mixed
2009 polyps
Khalid et al,26 2010 Anatomic dimensions in 8 Cadavers 5 Mixed
normal sinuses
Heimgartner et al,27 Chronic frontal sinusitis 64 Retrospective 4 Mixed
2011
Hopkins et al,28 2009 Acute frontal sinusitis 1 Case report 5 Positive
Wycherly et al,29 2010 Revision frontal sinus 13 Retrospective 4 Positive
surgery
Plaza et al,30 2011 CRS with polyposis 32 Prospective 3 Positive
Andrews et al,31 2010 Recurrent sinus 1 Case report 5 Negative
barotrauma
Luong et al,32 2008 Postoperative frontal 6 Retrospective 4 Positive
stenosis
Abbreviation: EBM, evidence-based medicine.

1000 Batra
(0.9 mm vs 2.6 mm) and sagittal (1.0 mm vs 4.0 mm) dimensions compared with EFS.
The most commonly fractured lamella after BCD was the anterior face of the ethmoid
bulla (56%). The clinical significance of these 2 interventions on frontal sinus disease is
not evident from the cadaveric data; from a technical perspective, it suggests that
BCD results in smaller frontal sinus outflow tract dimensions and may not produce
consistent fracture patterns of the bony lamellae of the frontal recess cells.
BCD for medically refractory chronic frontal sinusitis

Catalano and Payne25 performed BCD in 20 patients with medically refractory chronic
frontal sinusitis. A total of 29 frontal sinuses were accrued with either complete opa-
cification or partial opacification with total Lund-McKay score of greater than or equal
to 10. The disease was categorized grade I (<5 mm of mucosal thickening), II (5 mm
of mucosal thickening, partial opacification, air-fluid level), and III (total opacification)
in 10, 5, and 14 frontal sinuses, respectively. Overall, improvement was noted in 14 of
29 (48.3%) frontal sinuses using CT as the primary outcome measure. Success rate by
disease subtype for Samter triad, CRS with polyposis, and CRS without polyposis was
36.4%, 40%, and 61.5%, respectively. The investigators posited that “.50% of the
frontal sinuses in this study group were spared aggressive endoscopic intervention
and its associated morbidity..”25 It could also be argued that the failure rate of
BCD in patients with chronic frontal sinusitis approximates 50%, approaching 60%
to 65% in patients with hyperplastic disease. It is possible that the reported failure
rate was high given that many of the frontal mucosal changes seen on CT may be
potentially irreversible in patients with severe polyp disease and, thus, not respond
favorably to BCD. Furthermore, the study did not consider patient symptoms or endo-
scopic patency for outcome measures.
BCD for medically refractory chronic frontal sinusitis: retrospective evaluation

Heimgartner and colleagues27 retrospectively evaluated the limitation of BCD in frontal
sinus surgery to determine the technical failure rate and to assess the potential
reasons for failed access to the frontal sinus. BCD was unsuccessful in 12 (12%) of
104 frontal sinuses. The CT anatomy of the failed cases revealed that complex frontal
recess pneumatization pattern, such as agger nasi cell, frontoethmoidal cell, and/or
frontal bullar cell, or the presence of significant osteoneogenesis, may result in BCD
being challenging or impossible. This study underscores the potential limitation of
BCD in difficult anatomic configurations; it also emphasizes the need for the surgeon
to be able to perform EFS or other endoscopic frontal sinus procedures if BCD is
unable to achieve the desired result.
BCD for medically refractory chronic frontal sinusitis: randomized clinical trial
Plaza and colleagues30 performed the only randomized clinical trial of BCD and Draf I for
frontal sinus disease to date. A total of 40 patients with CRS with polyposis were
enrolled, with 32 successfully concluding the study. All patients had failed an 8-week
course of antibiotics, oral steroids, and saline irrigations. Exclusion criteria included
previous sinus surgery; advanced CRS, defined as Samter triad or symptomatic
asthma; severe systemic disease (ie, diabetes); and smoking more than 20 cigarettes
daily. All patients underwent hybrid procedures, which included a minimum of maxillary
antrostomy and anterior ethmoidectomy, with posterior ethmoidectomy and sphenoi-
dotomy being performed in select cases. Preoperative and 12-month postoperative
measures were obtained, including visual analog scores (VAS), Rhinosinusitis Disability
Index (RSDI), olfactory threshold, Lund-McKay scores, and frontal recess patency.
The VAS, RSDI, olfactory thresholds, and polyp scores were statistically improved in
both groups. The frontal sinus Lund-McKay scores improved from 1.9 to 0.5 and 2.0 to
0.4 in the BCD and Draf I groups, respectively, with both being statistically significant.
Resolution of frontal sinus disease was more common after BCD compared with Draf I
or Draf IIa procedures (80.8% vs 75%), although neither was statistically significant.
Frontal patency was statistically more common after BCD (73.1% vs 62.5%), whereas
synechiae formation was more common in the BCD, although not statistically
significant.
This is the first prospective comparative analysis of BCD and FESS. The strengths of
the study include independence from commercial conflicts, use of several validated
outcome tools, low attrition rate, and long follow-up. However, the study does not
provide sufficient data to suggest equivalency of BCD and Draf I procedures. As noted
by Ahmed and colleagues,38 the study did not perform a pretrial power analysis, thus
the group sizes may have not been large enough to discern a true difference in the
frontal radiologic scores . The study also suffers from a selective reporting bias, failing
to conduct a between-group analysis for CT, VAS, RSDI, and polyp scores, which
would have facilitated direct comparison. Often, statistical significance was reported,
although confidence intervals and P-values were omitted. Given the hybrid nature of
the surgical procedures, the ability to differentiate the direct impact of the frontal inter-
vention from concurrent ethmoidectomy is limited.
Balloon Dilation in the Office Setting
Two studies to date have reported on office-based BCD for frontal ostial stenosis in
the office setting.32,33
BCD in the office setting: multicenter case series
Luong and colleagues32 reported a multi-institutional case series on BCD for frontal
sinus ostial stenosis in the office setting. Six adult patients underwent a total of 7
BCD with change of ostia size from 1 to 2 mm to 5 to 7 mm immediately after treat-
ment. All procedures were performed using topical anesthesia without any complica-
tions. One frontal sinus ostia contracted more than 50%, requiring revision BCD in the
office. All frontal ostia were patent with follow-up ranging from 4 to 9 months, with no
patients requiring formal surgical revision in the operating room.
BCD in the office setting: surgery after Draf I and II
Eloy and colleagues33 performed in-office BCD in 5 patients developing frontal
stenosis after Draf I and II surgery. All procedures were well tolerated with use of
topical and injected local anesthesia. All procedures were deemed successful, with
improvement of frontal headaches and establishment of a patent drainage pathway
at a mean follow-up of 5 months. Both studies provide proof of concept of the poten-
tial usefulness of balloon technology in the office setting. It may provide the ability to
temporize sinus ostia stenosis in a subset of patients without the need for formal
surgical revision in the operative suite. This potential application merits further inves-
tigation with accrual of additional patients and longer-term follow-up.
Balloon Dilation in the ICU Setting
Wittkopf and colleagues34 reported on the usefulness of BCD in the management of
acute rhinosinusitis in 5 critically ill patients in the ICU setting. Four of 5 patients were
immunocompromised, 3 were leukopenic, and 4 were thrombocytopenic. All patients
had focal findings on CT with a mean Lund-McKay score of 7. All patients underwent
BCD because they were thought to be poor candidates for traditional FESS, although
surgical indications were not clarified. BCD was performed without complications and
with minimal blood loss. All patients returned to baseline health and met discharge
criteria 3 days to 6 weeks after surgery. Thus, BCD may have a diagnostic role in
1002 Batra
obtaining cultures, and possibly a therapeutic role in the ventilation and drainage of opa-
cified sinuses in critically ill patients. This application represents another potential of
BCD that merits additional study; the impact of BCD on return to baseline health is
unclear, especially because only 1 of the intraoperative cultures was positive.
WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE TELL US?
The accrued evidence to date has reported on the usefulness of BCD on a variety of
indications, including adult and pediatric CRS, limited CRS, and frontal sinusitis.
Studies have also explored the use of the technology in alternate practice settings,
including the office and ICU. The current database suggests that balloon technology
is safe; BCD provides the ability to dilate frontal, sphenoid, and maxillary sinuses and
to achieve patency in a large number of these cases for up to 2 years. However, limi-
tations to the current evidence preclude meaningful recommendations on how to
apply BCD in the treatment schema of CRS. Most of the data are comprised by uncon-
trolled, retrospective studies with poorly characterized patient cohorts lacking
a matched control group, which seriously hinders the ability to make any comparative
efficacy claims relative to FESS. Table 2 highlights the grade of evidence available for
several applications of BCD. The overall grade of the data is C, given that all available
studies, except for 1 study qualifying for level 2b evidence,30 comprise level 4
evidence. Given the widespread adoption of BCD, this underscores the importance
of timely randomized clinical trials, preferably with inclusion of appropriately matched
controls and validated outcome measures that make it possible to discern the impact
of BCD, relative to FESS, on the underlying disease process.
CRITICAL POINTS
Numerous studies have evaluated the usefulness of balloon catheter technology

for surgical management of adult CRS, with overarching existing data deemed to
be level 4.
Three studies assessing BCD for pediatric CRS are graded level 4; they are
confounded by concurrent adenoidectomy in a significant number of the chil-
dren, precluding the ability to discern the impact of each intervention.
Two studies have evaluated the use of transantral BCD for limited sinus disease,
with both studies being graded level 4 evidence.
Table 2
Grade of recommendation for potential indications of balloon catheter technology for
paranasal sinus inflammatory disease
Indication Recommendation Grade

Disease Specific
Adult medically refractory CRS C
Pediatric medically refractory CRS C
Minimal disease (CRS or RARS) C
Specific Sinus
Frontal sinus disease C
Alternate Practice Site
Office setting (ARS, RARS; CRS) C
ICU setting (ARS) D
Abbreviation: ARS, acute rhinosinusitis.

Most studies reporting the use of BCD for frontal sinus disease are level 4,
although 1 study provides level 2b evidence, suggesting possible usefulness of
the technology for this indication.
Level 4 evidence is available for the use of BCD in the office and ICU setting,
although both may represent potentially important applications of balloon devices.
The overall recommendation is grade C for the use of BCD for paranasal sinus
inflammatory disease, with a higher level being reserved until well-controlled
randomized trials are available.
Most studies on balloon catheter dilation (BCD) for pediatric chronic rhinosinusi-
tis are graded level 4, confounded by concurrent adenoidectomy in a significant
number of study participants.
REFERENCES
1. Benninger MS, Ferguson BJ, Hadley JA, et al. Adult chronic rhinosinusitis: defini-
tions, diagnosis, epidemiology, and pathophysiology. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2003;129(Suppl 3):S1–32.
2. Fokkens W, Lund V, Mullol J. European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal
polyps 2007. Rhinol Suppl 2007;20:1–136.
3. Slavin RG. Management of sinusitis. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39(2):212–7.
4. Cohen M, Kofonow J, Nayak JV. Biofilms in chronic rhinosinusitis: a review. Am J
Rhinol Allergy 2009;23(3):255–60.
5. Senior BA, Glaze C, Benninger MS. Use of the rhinosinusitis disability index
(RSDI) in rhinologic disease. Am J Rhinol 2001;15(1):15–20.
6. Smith TL, Batra PS, Seiden AM, et al. Evidence supporting endoscopic sinus
surgery in the management of adult chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review.
Am J Rhinol 2005;19(6):537–43.
7. Smith TL, Kern RC, Palmer JN, et al. Medical therapy vs surgery for chronic rhi-
nosinusitis: a prospective, multi-institutional study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2011;
1(4):235–41.
8. Lanza DC. Postoperative care and avoiding frontal recess stenosis. In: Abstracts
of the International Advanced Sinus Symposium. Philadelphia; 1993.
9. Vaughan WC. Review of balloon sinuplasty. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2008;16(1):2–9.
10. Batra PS, Ryan MW, Sindwani R, et al. Balloon catheter technology in rhinology:
reviewing the evidence. Laryngoscope 2011;121(1):226–32.
11. Bolger WE, Vaughan WC. Catheter-based dilation of the sinus ostia: initial safety
and feasibility analysis in a cadaver model. Am J Rhinol 2006;20(3):290–4.
12. Brown CL, Bolger WE. Safety and feasibility of balloon catheter dilation of para-
nasal sinus ostia: a preliminary investigation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;
115(4):293–9.
13. Tao S, Meyer DR, Simon JW, et al. Success of balloon catheter dilatation as
a primary or secondary procedure for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
Ophthalmology 2002;109(11):2108–11.
14. Citardi MJ, Kanowitz SJ. A cadaveric model for balloon-assisted endoscopic par-
anasal sinus dissection without fluoroscopy. Am J Rhinol 2007;21(5):579–83.
15. Stankiewicz J, Tami T, Truitt T, et al. Transantral, endoscopically guided balloon
dilatation of the ostiomeatal complex for chronic rhinosinusitis under local anes-
thesia. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23(3):321–7.
16. Stankiewicz J, Truitt T, Atkins J Jr. One-year results: transantral balloon dilation of
the ethmoid infundibulum. Ear Nose Throat J 2010;89(2):72–7.
1004 Batra
17. Bolger WE, Brown CL, Church CA, et al. Safety and outcomes of balloon catheter
technology: a multicenter 24-week analysis of 115 patients. Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 2007;37(1):10–20.
18. Kuhn FA, Church CA, Goldberg AN, et al. Balloon catheter sinusotomy: one-year
follow-up – outcomes and role of in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolar-
yngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139(3 Suppl 3):S27–37.
19. Weiss RL, Church CA, Kuhn FA, et al. Long-term outcome analysis of balloon
catheter sinusotomy: two-year follow-up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;
139(3 Suppl 3):S38–46.
20. Levine HL, Sertich AP II, Hoisington DR, et al. Multicenter registry of balloon cath-
eter sinusotomy. Outcomes for 1,036 patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;
117(4):263–70.
21. Friedman M, Schalch P, Lin HC, et al. Functional endoscopic dilatation of the
sinuses: patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, and cost. Am J Rhinol 2008;
22(2):204–9.
22. Ramadan HH. Safety and feasibility of balloon sinuplasty for treatment of chronic
rhinosinusitis in children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009;118(3):161–5.
23. Ramadan HH, McLaughlin K, Josephson G, et al. Balloon catheter sinuplasty in
young children. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24(1):e54–6.
24. Ramadan HH, Terrell AM. Balloon catheter sinuplasty and adenoidectomy in chil-
dren with chronic rhinosinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010;119(9):578–82.
25. Catalano PJ, Payne SC. Balloon dilation of the frontal recess in patients with
chronic frontal sinusitis and advanced sinus disease: an initial report. Ann Otol
Rhinol Laryngol 2009;118(2):107–12.
26. Khalid AN, Smith TL, Anderson JC, et al. Fracture of bony lamellae within the frontal
recess after balloon catheter dilatation. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24(1):55–9.
27. Heimgartner S, Eckardt J, Simmen D, et al. Limitations of balloon sinuplasty in
frontal sinus surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268(10):1463–7.
28. Hopkins C, Noon E, Roberts D. Balloon sinuplasty in acute frontal sinusitis. Rhi-
nology 2009;47(4):375–8.
29. Wycherly BJ, Manes RP, Mikula SK. Initial clinical experience with balloon dilation
in revision frontal sinus surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010;119(7):468–71.
30. Plaza G, Eisenberg G, Montojo J, et al. Balloon dilation of the frontal recess:
a randomized clinical trial. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2011;120(8):511–8.
31. Andrews JN, Weitzel EK, Eller R, et al. Unsuccessful frontal balloon sinuplasty for
recurrent sinus barotrauma. Aviat Space Environ Med 2010;81(5):514–6.
32. Luong A, Batra PS, Fakhri S, et al. Balloon catheter dilatation for frontal sinus
ostium stenosis in the office setting. Am J Rhinol 2008;22(6):621–4.
33. Eloy JA, Friedel ME, Eloy JD, et al. In-office balloon dilation of the failed frontal
sinusotomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;146:320–2.
34. Wittkopf ML, Becker SS, Duncavage JA, et al. Balloon sinuplasty for the surgical
management of immunocompromised and critically ill patients with acute rhinosi-
nusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140(4):596–8.
35. Marple BF, Stringer SP, Batra PS, et al. Going to the next level: health care’s evolving
expectations for evidence. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141:551–4.
36. Shin KS, Cho SH, Kim KR, et al. The role of adenoids in pediatric rhinosinusitis. Int
J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008;72:1643–50.
37. Brietzke SE, Brigger MT. Adenoidectomy outcomes in pediatric rhinosinusitis:
a meta-analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008;72:1541–5.
38. Ahmed J, Pal S, Hopkins C, et al. Functional endoscopic balloon dilation of sinus
ostia for chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(7):CD008515.
Epistaxis: A Contemporary
E v i d e n c e B a s e d A p p ro a c h
M.L. Barnes, FRCS-ORL(Ed), MD*, P.M. Spielmann, FRCS-ORL(Ed),
P.S. White, FRACS, FRCS(Ed), MBChB
KEYWORDS
Epistaxis Evidence Emergency ENT
KEY POINTS
Epistaxis is the second most common cause for ear/nose/throat emergency admission.
Given this fact, there are surprisingly few studies or guidelines, and management is
usually based on experience rather than high level evidence. A stepwise approach to
epistaxis management is advocated: initial management, direct therapy, tamponade,
and vascular intervention.
There is a changing emphasis in epistaxis management, with a move away from the
traditional approaches of prolonged admissions and reliance on extensive nasal
packing.
Arterial ligation procedures are increasingly commonly used, offering higher success
rates and much reduced morbidity.
A protocol is provided for clinical guidance and as a framework for future studies.
INTRODUCTION
Epistaxis is the second most common cause for emergency admission to ear/nose/
throat services (following sore throat). In 2009/2010, there were more than 21,000
emergency admissions in England with a mean inpatient stay of 1.9 days. The majority
of admissions are aged 60 to 70 years,1 but there is a bimodal age incidence, with an
earlier peak in childhood.2
Death due to epistaxis is rare. In 2005 in the United States, 7 epistaxis-related
deaths were recorded, all from the population 75 years or older3; an approximate
incidence in that age group of 1:2,500,000, and an overall incidence of 2:100 million.
The epidemiology of epistaxis in Scotland has been well reviewed,4 and readers are
referred here for more details.
Despite the heavy caseload there are no national or consensus guidelines to inform
management decisions, and the most junior members of staff are often the main
Department of Otolaryngology, Ward 26, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee DD1
9SY, United Kingdom
E-mail address: mr.mlbarnes@gmail.com

1006 Barnes et al
caregivers.5 Across different centers, investigation profiles and treatment preferences

vary. There are areas of controversy, and non-standardized practice exists. This situ-
ation needs to be addressed in an evidence-based fashion. The purpose of this article,
therefore, is to review the literature concerning the management of epistaxis and to
make recommendations (evidence-based where available) for treatment.
METHODS
A literature review was performed in July 2011. PubMed was searched using the term
“Epistaxis”[Majr], limited to reviews within the last 10 years. Relevant articles were
identified and obtained, as well as important ancestor references. Further specific
searches were conducted without limits, to address each theme within the review,
for example, “Epistaxis”[Majr] AND “Blood Coagulation Disorders”[Mesh]. More than
200 articles were reviewed, although few provided primary evidence beyond expert
opinion to guide the development of an overall management protocol.
A MANAGEMENT PATHWAY
Management of Epistaxis
A stepwise approach to epistaxis management is advocated. In order, this should be
initial management, followed by direct therapy, tamponade, and vascular intervention.
When control of bleeding is not achieved, timely progression through the management
steps is essential (Fig. 1).
Pathway Progression: Uncontrolled Epistaxis

Direct therapy or tamponade will almost invariably reduce bleeding, but sometimes
control is not absolute, and intermittent or minor ongoing bleeding may occur. In
such cases, a clinical decision must be made as to whether to progress with further
management as per uncontrolled epistaxis, or to observe the patient. Such is not
uncommon in cases of coagulopathy, where bleeding times may be significantly pro-
longed. The decision must be based on the ongoing rate of bleeding and the patient’s
risks. In some cases, a little further air in a tamponade balloon (often required within the
hour after initial insertion), or applying a procoagulant dressing to an oozing cautery site
(eg, Surgicel absorbable hemostat, Ethicon Inc, Somerville, NJ; or Algosteril Alginate
Fiber Absorbable Hemostat, Smith & Nephew PLC, London, UK) may be helpful.
Patients must not, however, sit for prolonged periods with poor control, multiple nasal
packs, and no further intervention. These patients must receive a pack or vascular
intervention if required.
Protocol Completion: Treated Epistaxis

Where possible, epistaxis should only be considered adequately treated when a
topical therapy or vascular intervention has been used, although when a thorough
examination has not identified a bleeding site, and simple vasoconstriction or tampo-
nade has led to initial control, longer-term resolution may be achieved through normal
hemostatic and tissue repair mechanisms in some cases.
Step 1. Initial management of epistaxis
Immediate management includes an Advanced Life Support–type ABC assessment
(Airway, Breathing, Circulation) and resuscitation. Epistaxis is not usually an imme-
diate airway threat but patients should be sat upright, and encouraged to lean forward
and clear any clots from their pharynx. An assessment of blood loss (eg, volume, time,
number of tissues, towels, or bowls) and the degree of any hypovolemic shock should
Epistaxis 1007
Fig. 1. Adult epistaxis management pathway. BID, twice a day; EUA, examination under
anesthesia; IHD, ischemic heart disease; AEA, anterior ethmoid artery; SPA, sphenopalatine
artery.
be made, while establishing venous access and fluid resuscitation where indicated.
Gloves, gowns, and goggles are essential to protect both clinician and patient. A
medical and drug history may elucidate precipitants. The side of bleeding as well as
whether it is predominantly anterior or posterior should be determined.
In exceptional circumstances, postnasal bleeding may be so heavy as to warrant an
immediate balloon pack (eg, Foley catheter and anterior pack) to prevent further blood
loss, with arrangements for transfer to theater. In general, however, the first priority is
to visualize the bleeding area through initial hemostatic measures and examination.
Depending on the bleeding site, and local skills and facilities, this may be best
1008 Barnes et al
achieved with a nasal thudicum or speculum in conjunction with a headlight or mirror,

an auroscope, microscope, or endoscope, noting that each approach has its limita-
tions. Nasoendoscopy facilities, above all others, are essential; identifying 80% of
bleeding sites not otherwise seen.6
Blood will likely obstruct the view to the bleeding site. In anterior nasal bleeding, this
can be controlled through anterior nasal compression for 10 to 60 minutes in conjunc-
tion with topical vasoconstrictors.7 If hemostasis is not achieved or nasal compression
only leads to postnasal bleeding, it should be discontinued, and an attempt made to
clear blood and visualize the site with suction, forceps, irrigation,8 or nose blowing.
These methods may achieve initial hemostasis, and/or allow bleeding site visualization
necessary for direct therapies such as cautery.
Topical vasoconstrictor preparations recommended include 1:1000 adrenalin
(epinephrine),9 0.5% phenylephrine hydrochloride,10 4% cocaine, or 0.05% oxymeta-
zoline solution,7 but few comparisons have been conducted. One study suggested
that oxymetazoline may be more effective than 1:100,000 (dilute) adrenalin, and
equally effective with less propensity to induce hypertension when compared with
4% cocaine.11
Investigations A full blood count will facilitate assessment of blood loss and shock. A
biochemistry profile may indicate circulatory effects on renal function or the break-
down products of a large volume of ingested blood. A sample should be sent to estab-
lish blood group and match of transfusion products (eg, red cells, plasma, or platelets).
Routine coagulation profiles are not recommended,12–14 unless the patient takes
warfarin or is admitted as a child.15 Angiography has an essential but infrequent role
in excluding potentially fatal carotid aneurysms in trauma and in cases of heavy post-
surgical bleeding.
Step 2. Direct therapy

Silver nitrate cautery Cautery using topical anesthetic is advocated by most investiga-
tors as the optimal management in adult epistaxis. Nonetheless, in 1993 only 24% of
cases referred to specialist otolaryngology units in the United Kingdom were managed
in this way, with 76% undergoing nasal packing.5
Silver nitrate cautery is common but is difficult in the context of active bleeding,
where electrocautery or electrocoagulation (diathermy) may be more effective. A
local cauterizing solution is achieved by touching a dry salt silver nitrate tipped appli-
cator against moist mucosa. The objective is direct cautery of the bleeding site, but
initial circumferential contact may facilitate control of bleeding and more definitive
results.8
Silver nitrate is available in 75% and 95% preparations. A histopathological study
comparing the two found that 95% silver nitrate caused twice the depth of burn, which
it was thought might increase the risk of complications including septal perforation.16
It is believed that bilateral cautery may also increase the risk of septal perforation,17
with a 4- to 6-week interval being advocated between sides,18 although Link and
colleagues19 found this not to be the case using silver nitrate (n 5 46).
Silver nitrate (AgNO3) can cause black staining, which may be addressed by appli-
cation of saline (NaCl) to form silver chloride (AgCl) and sodium nitrate (NaNO3)20; both
are white crystals, and the latter is readily soluble in water. Stains usually resolve over
a period of weeks,21 but permanent mucosal tattooing has been reported.22–24
Electrocautery and electrocoagulation (diathermy) Toner and Walby25 compared
routine use of hot-wire electrocautery with use of silver nitrate, finding no difference
in the rates of recurrent bleeding at 2 months, although the confidence interval (CI)
Epistaxis 1009
was broad, with some trend toward greater benefit with electrocautery (95%
CI 11%–24%).
Although specialist equipment is required, electrocautery (hot wire) or diathermy
may have advantages over silver nitrate, which can be difficult to apply to the site
in cases of uncontrolled bleeding. No further electrocautery or electrocoagulation
studies were identified.
After direct therapy, in some cases of minor ongoing bleeding, the addition of a hemo-
static dressing such as Surgicel (Ethicon) or Kaltostat (ConvaTec Ltd, Skillman, NJ),
or the use of a very localized pack over the bleeding site, may help to prevent further
pathway progression.
Step 3. Nasal packs or dressings
If local therapy fails, control of bleeding can be achieved by tamponade, using a variety
of nasal packs, or by promotion of hemostasis through nasal dressings. Modern nasal
packs are easily and relatively comfortably inserted by practitioners not specialized in
otorhinolaryngology, for example, in the emergency department, ambulance, or family
practice. As a consequence, many patients now arrive at the authors’ department with
packs inserted. However, this does prevent immediate direct therapy, which might
otherwise allow a treated patient to be sent home. Once a pack is inserted, it is usually
recommended that it is left in place for 24 hours, necessitating admission, although
care at home with packs has been described.10
A variety of nasal packing materials is available. Examples include polyvinyl acetal
polymer sponges (eg, Merocel, Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN), nasal balloons (eg,
the Rapid Rhino Balloon pack with a self-lubricating hydrocolloid fabric covering,
ArthroCare Corp, Austin, TX), nasal dressings (eg, Kaltostat calcium alginate, Conva-
Tec Ltd), and traditional ribbon packs, for example, BIPP (Bismuth, Iodoform, Paraffin
Paste) or petroleum jelly–coated ribbon gauze. Each of these packs is illustrated
in Fig. 2. Some (eg, Rapid Rhino, Kaltostat) are reported to provide procoagulant
surfaces, which may be helpful in coagulopathic patients, most commonly those on
warfarin.
Fig. 2. Common nasal packs and dressings. (A) Merocel (polyvinyl acetal polymer sponge
pack); (B) Rapid Rhino (self-lubricating hydrocolloid covered balloon pack); (C) a traditional
ribbon pack, in this case BIPP (Bismuth Iodoform Paraffin Paste); (D) Surgicel (oxidized regen-
erated cellulose absorbable hemostat); (E) Algosteril (alginate fiber absorbable hemostat).
1010 Barnes et al
A nasopharyngeal pack may be placed in posterior epistaxis (approximately 5% of

cases26), especially when initial anterior packs fail. Traditional postnasal packs were
rolled gauze attached to tapes passed out through the nose and mouth to secure.26
More recently, Brighton or Foley catheters have been used, inflated with saline and
secured transnasally with an anterior clamp, for example, an umbilical clip.
Postnasal packs are extremely uncomfortable and are prone to cause significant
hypoxia.27 Hospitalization, oxygen therapy via face mask, and in some cases sedation
are required; a combination that increases the risks of hypoxia and aspiration. Other
complications of nasal packs (especially nasopharyngeal) include displacement with
airway obstruction, pressure necrosis of the palate, alar or columellar skin, and sinus
infection or toxic shock syndrome. The latter is caused by staphylococcal exotoxin
TSST-1, and presents with fever, diarrhea, hypotension, and a rash.26 Staphylococcus
aureus can be isolated in one-third of patients, of which 30% produce the exotoxin.28
Therefore, prolonged packing should be avoided and anti-staphylococcal antibiotics
prescribed if a pack is to remain in situ for more than 24 hours8 (see discussion on
high-risk cases).
Balloon packs may deflate over time,29 so should be checked after the first hour or if
bleeding recommences. Some minor ongoing bleeding is not uncommon immediately
following pack insertion, and may resolve given careful observation.
Following pack removal it is imperative to examine the nasal cavity, to exclude
underlying abnormality and to identify and manage the bleeding source if possible.
Step 4. Ligation/embolization
Surgery In a 1993 United Kingdom national survey of practice, 9.3% of epistaxis
patients referred to an otolaryngologist required a posterior nasal pack (commonly
a Foley catheter). A general anesthetic was required in 5.6% to control bleeding,
and fewer than 1% had a formal arterial ligation (ethmoid, maxillary, or external
carotid).5
In the authors’ own center, with 593 acute admissions for epistaxis over the last
2 years, 47% had hospital stays of 1 day or less. Of the 317 longer-term cases, 7%
were taken to theater and underwent arterial ligation: 21 of the sphenopalatine artery
(SPA) and 2 of the anterior ethmoid artery (AEA). In some cases, the theater equipment
and anesthetic will facilitate visualization of the bleeding site, bleeding control, and
direct cautery. Where this remains impossible, or uncertainty is present about the
control established, arterial ligation is performed.
In the past, ligation was commonly of the maxillary artery or the external carotid
artery. Although the distribution of these arteries is wider, recent studies suggest
that SPA ligation is more successful, possibly because of difficulties completing the
other procedures, or a failure to address more distal collateral circulation.30 SPA
ligation is associated with minor complications such as nasal crusting, decreased
lacrimation, and paresthesia of the palate or nose.31 Septal perforation and inferior
turbinate necrosis have also been reported.32,33
By contrast, ligation of the maxillary artery through a canine fossa approach can
be complicated by dental or nasolacrimal duct injury, facial and gum numbness, or
oroantral fistula.34 Ligation of the external carotid artery is associated with a small
risk of injury to the hypoglossal and vagus nerves, and a lower success rate.30
When compared with traditional packing techniques, SPA ligation has been shown
to enable a reduced inpatient stay, improved patient satisfaction, and cost reduc-
tions.35 Feusi and colleagues.36 reviewed SPA ligation efficacy studies in 2005: 13
investigators reported 264 patients with 1-year success rates of between 70% and
100%. More recent studies with longer-term follow-up (15–25 months) reported
Epistaxis 1011
success rates of between 75% and 100%.37–40 Ligation of all41 SPA branches is
essential.42
AEA ligation has an essential role in traumatic or postsurgical epistaxis, in which
nasal or ethmoid bony injury leads to bleeding beyond the SPA distribution. Recent
attempts have been made to avoid the external scar, performing AEA ligation by endo-
nasal or transcaruncular approaches. The endonasal approach, first described by
Woolford and Jones,43 requires either an artery within a mesentry44 or an approach
to the artery through the lamina papyracea.45 The former was feasible in 20% or fewer
of cases.44 The latter, performed through the lamina, appears to be safe and feasible
in most cases,45,46 although this is likely an approach best left to expert hands. In both
cases, preoperative or intraoperative computed tomography scans and image guid-
ance are advised.
A transcaruncular approach is an appealing alternative. Morera and colleagues47
report a case series of 9 patients in which all were successful with no reported compli-
cations. For now, however, a pragmatic approach may be to use an endoscope in a
conventional external approach, allowing the scar to be minimized.48
The choice of surgical ligation type is a clinical decision, which must be based on the
history and examination findings. Epistaxis traditionally has been defined as anterior or
posterior, with posterior bleeds considered to relate to the Woodruff plexus. The defi-
nitions have been inconsistent, however,49 and the relevance of the Woodruff plexus
recently questioned.50
An understanding of the anatomy is essential for both surgeons and interventional
radiologists. To this end, the reader is referred to excellent texts by Lee and
colleagues42 and Biswas and colleagues.51
Interventional radiology: embolization Selective embolization of the maxillary or

facial arteries should be considered in cases where surgical ligation fails, or is impos-
sible because of anesthetic concerns. A variety of materials have been used including
metal coils, Gelfoam, and cyanoacrylate glue. Success rates between 79% and 96%
are reported,52 but complications are not uncommon: cerebrovascular accident, arte-
rial dissection, facial skin necrosis, facial numbness, and groin hematoma can occur,
with historic rates of up to 47% but only 6% in larger, more recent series.53
Percutaneous angiography is performed to identify the vascular anatomy. Extrava-
sation may suggest the site of epistaxis, but is not often seen. Radiopaque nasal
packing (such as BIPP) must be removed. Selective embolization of the relevant arte-
rial supply, typically the internal maxillary artery, reduces the hydrostatic pressure of
blood to the nasal cavity, allowing hemostasis, which must be balanced against
devascularizing the facial soft tissues. Embolization of the ethmoidal arteries is not
possible; cannulation of the ophthalmic arteries carries a high risk of blindness.
Refractory Acute Epistaxis

Occasionally bleeding will continue (usually slowly or intermittently), despite all con-
servative measures, good nasal packs, examination under anesthetic, and even arte-
rial ligations. In such cases, it is important to reconsider questions regarding anatomy
and physiology.
For anatomy
Which side is it bleeding? Is it passing through a perforation, or around the choana?
Has a competent practitioner visualized the area of bleeding directly? In cases with
a history of trauma, is there an anterior ethmoid laceration, or a carotid aneurysm?
Is there a role for further ligations of the bilateral sphenopalatine, or anterior and
1012 Barnes et al
posterior ethmoid arteries? Will a maxillary artery or external carotid ligation add
anything (eg, minor contributions from the facial and greater palatine branches)?
Will angiography be informative and potentially therapeutic?
For physiology
Is the patient coagulopathic? Are they bleeding diffusely? Have measures been taken
to reverse any drug-induced coagulopathy? If they have bled extensively, have their
clotting factors been replaced? Has hypertension been addressed? Will tranexamic
acid,54 topical hemostatics,55 or fibrin sealants56,57 help?
Adjunctive Treatments
Topical treatments
For the purposes of the current protocol, regarding epistaxis requiring admission,
topical treatments are considered to be inappropriate as sole therapy. However, topi-
cal agents may have a role as an adjunct and, noting their efficacy in minor recurrent
epistaxis, especially in childhood,58 the authors recommend them in all cases. Options
include Naseptin cream (0.1% chlorhexidine dihydrochloride with 0.5% neomycin
sulfate), petroleum jelly, Bactroban, triamcinolone 0.025%,59 and others.60
Ice packs
Ice packs are a tradition on many of our wards. When ice cubes are sucked, there is
a measurable reduction in nasal blood flow assessed by nasal laser Doppler flowme-
try.61 However, no change is seen when ice is applied to the forehead or neck.62
Preventing Epistaxis Deaths
In 1961, Quinn63 wrote of his own experience and reviewed previous cases of fatal
epistaxes, recognizing the groups at risk; those with significant comorbidity (eg,
ischemic heart disease, coagulopathy) and endonasal tumors, or following head and
facial trauma or surgery. He advocated angiography following trauma, as well as
“adequate blood replacement and an informed attitude toward surgical interruption
of the blood supply.” He also reported the association of anterior ethmoid bleeding
with trauma, the use of ferrous sulfate, and the association of cranial nerve signs
with internal carotid laceration or aneurism. His observations seem just as relevant
today as then, and still address the most important issues; in particular, the recognition
of high-risk groups and the need in such cases for early and relatively aggressive fluid
resuscitation to prevent complications and deaths, most commonly in elderly patients
with ischemic heart disease.
Quinn63 recognized the difficulty of balancing the need to transfuse anemic
epistaxis patients against the risks, noting the possible contribution of a blood trans-
fusion to the death of at least one patient. Prolonged admissions with nasal packs and
poorly controlled bleeding will exacerbate this risk, and for these reasons Kotecha and
colleagues5 recommended earlier surgical intervention in some elderly patients with
compromised respiratory or cardiovascular systems.
In the current protocol, the authors recommend a transfusion threshold of 7 to 9
g/dL. This figure is based primarily on a study in critically unwell patients in which
a restrictive policy (transfusion indicated if hemoglobin <8 g/dL cf <10 g/dL) was
shown to improve survival outcomes, particularly in the young (<55 years) and those
relatively less unwell.64
Although rare, death in association with epistaxis has also been reported to occur
through airway obstruction. Again, significant comorbidity (eg, neurologic impairment
caused by preexisting disease or head injury) may be present. Airway obstruction
secondary to nasal packing is a risk, attributable to either pack or clot dislodgment.65
Epistaxis 1013
In some patients, nasal obstruction itself can lead to significant arterial oxygen
desaturation.27 Again, an awareness of these potential scenarios with appropriate
measures to prepare the patient, protect the airway, and monitor oxygenation is
important to prevent fatal complications.
The most common case report of death secondary to epistaxis relates to rupture of
an internal carotid aneurysm, often of traumatic or surgical origin. In torrential bleeds
of this nature, only early suspicion with angiography, coil occlusion, stenting, or sur-
gical ligation of the aneurysm or the internal carotid in the neck will prevent death.66
In the operative context, Valentine and colleagues67 recently compared several
measures for initial hemostasis in carotid injury, concluding that crushed muscle
hemostasis followed by U-clip repair was the most effective, achieving primary hemo-
stasis while maintaining vascular patency in all cases.
LITERATURE REVIEW ON EPISTAXIS
In reviewing the epistaxis literature, one is confronted with a wealth of expert opinion
and descriptive articles. Few primary research studies are conducted, and those avail-
able focus on management techniques rather than on pathway decisions. Without
placing the patients in the context of a management pathway, these studies may
lack transferability; one’s own patients may represent a different population at a
different point in the pathway. It is for these reasons that a management pathway
must be defined, and as a starting point the authors advocate the protocol described
herein.
In developing a contemporary protocol, one must recognize the changing emphasis
of epistaxis management with a move away from traditional approaches of prolonged
admissions and reliance on extensive nasal packing. Refined arterial ligation pro-
cedures are increasingly commonly used, offering higher success rates and less
morbidity. These procedures have facilitated shorter admissions, with happier patients
as well as hospital managers.
The current protocol excludes contexts such as coagulopathy, hereditary hemor-
rhagic telangiectasia (HHT), and children, although useful generalizations can be
made. Of admitted epistaxis patients, 62% have an iatrogenic coagulopathy (21%
warfarin, 41% antiplatelet). This group requires longer inpatient stays and more
aggressive management.68,69 Although management follows the same principles,
the coagulopathy itself must be addressed, and care must be taken not to cause
further trauma through aggressive cautery, nasal packing, or vascular intervention.
Procoagulant dressings may be helpful. The authors hope to provide further guidance
on the management of this group in a later article.
The authors are aware of several different approaches to epistaxis that have not
been recommended in this guideline, from simple vasoconstrictor treatments70 to
hot-water irrigation71–73 or cryotherapy.74 Although efficacy studies are reported,
few if any comparisons have been performed against conventional techniques in
the context of a defined management protocol. It is hoped that this article will facilitate
future scientific comparisons to allow the best timing of such interventions to be
established.
As always, further research in the field is needed. Despite the frequency of epistaxis
as a presentation, little formal research has been conducted. The authors recommend
that any interventional studies place themselves in the context of the overall pathway
of patient management, as well as tightly defining patient flow (stepwise by protocol)
and demographics; for example, age, sex, blood pressure, anticoagulant use, other
medications (including herbal), HHT, prior episodes, trauma or operative history,
1014 Barnes et al
and so forth. The authors are developing an epistaxis admission data set, optically
captured from an admission pro forma, and would be happy to hear from any other
interested centers.
REFERENCES
1. The Information Centre for Health and Social Care. 2011. Available at: http://www.
hesonline.nhs.uk Accessed May 2011.
2. Juselius H. Epistaxis. A clinical study of 1,724 patients. J Laryngol Otol 1974;88:
317–27.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National center for health statistics.
Vitalstats; 2005. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/vitalstats.htm. Accessed
July 31, 2011.
4. Walker TW, Macfarlane TV, McGarry GW. The epidemiology and chronobiology of
epistaxis: an investigation of Scottish hospital admissions 1995-2004. Clin Otolar-
yngol 2007;32:361–5.
5. Kotecha B, Fowler S, Harkness P, et al. Management of epistaxis: a national
survey. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1996;78:444–6.
6. McGarry GW. Nasal endoscope in posterior epistaxis: a preliminary evaluation.
7. Kucik CJ, Clenney T. Management of epistaxis. Am Fam Physician 2005;71:
305–11.
8. Viehweg TL, Roberson JB, Hudson JW. Epistaxis: diagnosis and treatment. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:511–8.
9. Middleton PM. Epistaxis. Emerg Med Australas 2004;16:428–40.
10. Upile T, Jerjes W, Sipaul F, et al. A change in UK epistaxis management. Eur Arch
11. Katz RI, Hovagim AR, Finkelstein HS, et al. A comparison of cocaine, lidocaine
with epinephrine, and oxymetazoline for prevention of epistaxis on nasotracheal
intubation. J Clin Anesth 1990;2:16–20.
12. Supriya M, Shakeel M, Veitch D, et al. Epistaxis: prospective evaluation of
bleeding site and its impact on patient outcome. J Laryngol Otol 2010;124:
744–9.
13. Thaha MA, Nilssen EL, Holland S, et al. Routine coagulation screening in the
management of emergency admission for epistaxis—is it necessary? J Laryngol
Otol 2000;114:38–40.
14. Padgham N. Epistaxis: anatomical and clinical correlates. J Laryngol Otol 1990;
104:308–11.
15. Sandoval C, Dong S, Visintainer P, et al. Clinical and laboratory features of 178
children with recurrent epistaxis. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2002;24:47–9.
16. Amin M, Glynn F, Phelan S, et al. Silver nitrate cauterisation, does concentration
matter? Clin Otolaryngol 2007;32:197–9.
17. Lanier B, Kai G, Marple B, et al. Pathophysiology and progression of nasal
septal perforation. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2007;99:473–9 [quiz: 480–1,
521].
18. Schlosser RJ. Clinical practice. Epistaxis. N Engl J Med 2009;360:784–9.
19. Link TR, Conley SF, Flanary V, et al. Bilateral epistaxis in children: efficacy of bilat-
eral septal cauterization with silver nitrate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006;70:
1439–42.
20. Maitra S, Gupta D. A simple technique to avoid staining of skin around nasal
vestibule following cautery. Clin Otolaryngol 2007;32:74.
Epistaxis 1015
21. Oxford Hands-on Science (H-Sci) Project: Chemical Safety Database. Chemical
safety data: Silver nitrate; Available at: http://cartwright.chem.ox.ac.uk/hsci/
chemicals/silver_nitrate.html. Accessed August 17, 2011.
22. Kayarkar R, Parker AJ, Goepel JR. The Sheffield nose—an occupational disease?
Rhinology 2003;41(2):125–6.
23. Mayall F, Wild D. A silver tattoo of the nasal mucosa after silver nitrate cautery.
24. Nguyen RC, Leclerc JE, Nantel A, et al. Argyremia in septal cauterization with
silver nitrate. J Otolaryngol 1999;28:211–6.
25. Toner JG, Walby AP. Comparison of electro and chemical cautery in the treatment
of anterior epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 1990;104:617–8.
26. Tan LK, Calhoun KH. Epistaxis. Med Clin North Am 1999;83:43–56.
27. Lin YT, Orkin LR. Arterial hypoxemia in patients with anterior and posterior nasal
packings. Laryngoscope 1979;89:140–4.
28. Breda SD, Jacobs JB, Lebowitz AS, et al. Toxic shock syndrome in nasal surgery:
a physiochemical and microbiologic evaluation of Merocel and Nugauze nasal
packing. Laryngoscope 1987;97:1388–91.
29. Ong CC, Patel KS. A study comparing rates of deflation of nasal balloons used in
epistaxis. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 1996;50:33–5.
30. Srinivasan V, Sherman IW, O’Sullivan G. Surgical management of intractable
epistaxis: Audit of results. J Laryngol Otol 2000;114:697–700.
31. Snyderman CH, Goldman SA, Carrau RL, et al. Endoscopic sphenopalatine
artery ligation is an effective method of treatment for posterior epistaxis. Am J
Rhinol 1999;13:137–40.
32. Gifford TO, Orlandi RR. Epistaxis. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2008;41:525–36, viii.
33. Moorthy R, Anand R, Prior M, et al. Inferior turbinate necrosis following endo-
scopic sphenopalatine artery ligation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:
159–60.
34. Schaitkin B, Strauss M, Houck JR. Epistaxis: medical versus surgical therapy:
a comparison of efficacy, complications, and economic considerations. Laryngo-
scope 1987;97:1392–6.
35. Moshaver A, Harris JR, Liu R, et al. Early operative intervention versus conven-
tional treatment in epistaxis: randomized prospective trial. J Otolaryngol 2004;
33:185–8.
36. Feusi B, Holzmann D, Steurer J. Posterior epistaxis: systematic review on the
effectiveness of surgical therapies. Rhinology 2005;43:300–4.
37. Harvinder S, Rosalind S, Gurdeep S. Endoscopic cauterization of the sphenopa-
latine artery in persistent epistaxis. Med J Malaysia 2008;63:377–8.
38. Nouraei SA, Maani T, Hajioff D, et al. Outcome of endoscopic sphenopalatine
artery occlusion for intractable epistaxis: a 10-year experience. Laryngoscope
2007;117:1452–6.
39. Asanau A, Timoshenko AP, Vercherin P, et al. Sphenopalatine and anterior
ethmoidal artery ligation for severe epistaxis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009;
118:639–44.
40. Abdelkader M, Leong SC, White PS. Endoscopic control of the sphenopalatine
artery for epistaxis: long-term results. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:759–62.
41. Holzmann D, Kaufmann T, Pedrini P, et al. Posterior epistaxis: endonasal expo-
sure and occlusion of the branches of the sphenopalatine artery. Eur Arch Otorhi-
nolaryngol 2003;260:425–8.
42. Lee HY, Kim HU, Kim SS, et al. Surgical anatomy of the sphenopalatine artery in
lateral nasal wall. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1813–8.
1016 Barnes et al
43. Woolford TJ, Jones NS. Endoscopic ligation of anterior ethmoidal artery in treat-
ment of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 2000;114:858–60.
44. Solares CA, Luong A, Batra PS. Technical feasibility of transnasal endoscopic
anterior ethmoid artery ligation: assessment with intraoperative CT imaging. Am
J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:619–21.
45. Pletcher SD, Metson R. Endoscopic ligation of the anterior ethmoid artery. Laryn-
goscope 2007;117:378–81.
46. Camp AA, Dutton JM, Caldarelli DD. Endoscopic transnasal transethmoid ligation
of the anterior ethmoid artery. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:200–2.
47. Morera E, Artigas C, Trobat F, et al. Transcaruncular electrocoagulation of anterior
ethmoidal artery for the treatment of severe epistaxis. Laryngoscope 2011;121:
446–50.
48. Douglas SA, Gupta D. Endoscopic assisted external approach anterior ethmoidal
artery ligation for the management of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:132–3.
49. McGarry GW. Epistaxis. In: Gleeson M, Browning GG, Burton MJ, et al, editors.
Scott-Brown’s otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery. London: Hodder
Arnold; 2008. p. 1596–608.
50. Chiu TW, McGarry GW. Prospective clinical study of bleeding sites in idiopathic
adult posterior epistaxis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:390–3.
51. Biswas D, Ross SK, Sama A, et al. Non-sphenopalatine dominant arterial supply
of the nasal cavity: an unusual anatomical variation. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:
689–91.
52. Smith TP. Embolization in the external carotid artery. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;17:
1897–912 [quiz: 1913].
53. Elahi MM, Parnes LS, Fox AJ, et al. Therapeutic embolization in the treatment of
intractable epistaxis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121:65–9.
54. Sabbà C, Gallitelli M, Palasciano G. Efficacy of unusually high doses of tranexa-
mic acid for the treatment of epistaxis in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.
N Engl J Med 2001;345:926.
55. Shinkwin CA, Beasley N, Simo R, et al. Evaluation of Surgicel Nu-Knit, Merocel
and Vaseline gauze nasal packs: a randomized trial. Rhinology 1996;34:41–3.
56. Walshe P, Harkin C, Murphy S, et al. The use of fibrin glue in refractory coagulo-
pathic epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2001;26:284–5.
57. Walshe P. The use of fibrin glue to arrest epistaxis in the presence of a coagulop-
athy. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1126–8.
58. Kubba H, MacAndie C, Botma M, et al. A prospective, single-blind, randomized
controlled trial of antiseptic cream for recurrent epistaxis in childhood. Clin Oto-
laryngol Allied Sci 2001;26:465–8.
59. London SD, Lindsey WH. A reliable medical treatment for recurrent mild anterior
epistaxis. Laryngoscope 1999;109:1535–7.
60. Kara N, Spinou C, Gardiner Q. Topical management of anterior epistaxis: A
national survey. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:91–5.
61. Porter MJ. A comparison between the effect of ice packs on the forehead and
ice cubes in the mouth on nasal submucosal temperature. Rhinology 1991;29:
11–5.
62. Teymoortash A, Sesterhenn A, Kress R, et al. Efficacy of ice packs in the manage-
ment of epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2003;28:545–7.
63. Quinn FB. Fatal epistaxis. Calif Med 1961;94:88–92.
64. Hébert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled
clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. N Engl J Med 1999;340:
409–17.
Epistaxis 1017
65. Williams M, Onslow J. Airway difficulties associated with severe epistaxis. Anaes-
thesia 1999;54:812–3.
66. Lehmann P, Saliou G, Page C, et al. Epistaxis revealing the rupture of a carotid
aneurysm of the cavernous sinus extending into the sphenoid: treatment using
an uncovered stent and coils. Review of literature. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
2009;266:767–72.
67. Valentine R, Boase S, Jervis-Bardy J, et al. The efficacy of hemostatic techniques
in the sheep model of carotid artery injury. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2011;1:
118–22.
68. Smith J, Siddiq S, Dyer C, et al. Epistaxis in patients taking oral anticoagulant and
antiplatelet medication: prospective cohort study. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:
38–42.
69. Soyka MB, Rufibach K, Huber A, et al. Is severe epistaxis associated with acetyl-
salicylic acid intake? Laryngoscope 2010;120:200–7.
70. Doo G, Johnson DS. Oxymetazoline in the treatment of posterior epistaxis. Hawaii
Med J 1999;58:210–2.
71. Stangerup SE, Thomsen HK. Histological changes in the nasal mucosa after hot-
water irrigation. An animal experimental study. Rhinology 1996;34:14–7.
72. Stangerup SE, Dommerby H, Lau T. Hot-water irrigation as a treatment of poste-
rior epistaxis. Rhinology 1996;34:18–20.
73. Stangerup SE, Dommerby H, Siim C, et al. New modification of hot-water irriga-
tion in the treatment of posterior epistaxis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
1999;125:686–90.
74. Hicks JN, Norris JW. Office treatment by cryotherapy for severe posterior nasal
epistaxis–update. Laryngoscope 1983;93:876–9.
Postoperative Care in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery
a, b
Luke Rudmik, MD *, Timothy L. Smith, MD, MPH
KEYWORDS
Endoscopic sinus surgery Chronic rhinosinusitis Sinusitis Postoperative care
Nasal irrigations Debridement Topical steroids Sinus stent
KEY POINTS
The following points present level of evidence as based on grading by the Oxford Centre for
Evidence-Based Medicine.
Postoperative care following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is important to optimize
clinical outcomes.
Nasal saline irrigations should be used following ESS (Grade: B).
In-office endoscopic sinus cavity debridement after ESS improves both short-term and
long-term clinical outcomes (Grade: B).
Topical steroid therapy is integral for control of postoperative mucosal inflammation and
should be started following ESS (Grade: A).
Off-label topical steroid solutions may be considered in cases with severe mucosal inflam-
mation (Grade: D).
Perioperative systemic corticosteroids improve endoscopic outcomes following ESS in
patients with nasal polyposis (Grade: not available; 1 level 1b study).
Systemic antibiotics improve short-term symptoms and reduce crusting following ESS (Grade: B).
Drug-eluting middle meatal spacers and stents improve endoscopic outcomes in patients
with nasal polyposis (Grade: A).
OVERVIEW
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a disabling inflammatory condition of the sinonasal

mucosa that produces symptoms of nasal congestion, discharge, facial pressure,
and olfactory dysfunction.1 Furthermore, several studies have demonstrated that
CRS produces a significant reduction in both disease-specific symptoms and general
Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.

a
Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Depart-
ment of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; b Rhinology and Endoscopic
Sinus-Skull Base Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon
Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
* Corresponding author. Division of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Foothills Medical
Centre, Suite 602 South Tower, 1403 – 29th Street Northwest, Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada.
E-mail address: lukerudmik@gmail.com

1020 Rudmik & Smith
quality of life (QoL).2–4 Management of CRS is focused on reducing mucosal inflamma-

tion and improving sinonasal function. The use of topical and systemic medical
therapy remains the mainstay of treatment; however, a subset of patients will have
persistent symptoms despite best medical efforts, and become candidates for endo-
scopic sinus surgery (ESS). Several studies have demonstrated the positive impact of
ESS on both symptom-related and health-related QoL (HRQoL) outcomes in patients
with medically refractory CRS.1,5–8 With more than 250,000 ESS procedures performed
in the United States every year, it is important for the surgeon to optimize factors that
improve postoperative success, which can produce positive long-term clinical
outcomes.9 Although there are several minor technical variations, the fundamentals
of ESS are to preserve mucosal lining while removing diseased tissue, creating an
accessible sinus cavity, and ventilating the natural draining sinus pathways.10
The primary goals of early postoperative care are to reduce mucosal inflammation
and infection, improve short-term patient symptoms, promote early return of ciliary
function, and prevent complications. Optimizing these goals should incur the best
chance to maintain long-term HRQoL improvement and minimize the need for revision
ESS. There is no standardized approach to postoperative care and, because of
numerous reported strategies, there remains a debate regarding what constitutes
the optimal postoperative care protocol. The most commonly described postoperative
care modalities include: nasal saline irrigations, in-office sinus cavity debridement,
topical nasal steroid sprays, off-label topical steroids, short-course systemic steroids,
systemic antibiotics, and middle meatal drug-eluting spacers and stents (Box 1).
Following a successful ESS procedure, an open and accessible sinus cavity will
allow for continued topical medical therapy, which is critical for long-term success
by minimizing mucosal inflammation. This article discusses the evidence pertaining
to the different postoperative care strategies, and provides an evidence-based
approach to postoperative care following ESS.
Following ESS, the milieu of old blood, exposed bone, unresorbed packing, and
retained secretions can predispose to infection and inflammation, and provide a poten-
tial framework for scarring and early disease recurrence. Although there may be
Box 1
Common ESS postoperative care interventions
Nasal Saline Irrigations

Low-volume
High-volume
Endoscopic nasal and sinus cavity debridement
Topical corticosteroid therapies
Sprays
Drops
Irrigations
Systemic corticosteroid therapy
Systemic antibiotic therapy
Middle meatal drug-eluting spacers
Middle meatal drug-eluting stents
Postoperative Care in ESS 1021
a minority of surgeons who believe postoperative care following ESS is un-necessary,11

most experts believe that despite careful patient selection and meticulous surgery,
a failure of dedicated postoperative care likely predisposes to potentially avoidable
complications,12–14 such as synechiae, middle turbinate lateralization, ostial stenosis,
and rapid polyp recurrence (Fig. 1). The return of normal mucosal histology and ciliary
function often takes longer than 12 weeks following surgery, therefore, postoperative
follow-up is often recommended to ensure an adequate healing sinus cavity.15
In a recent multi-institutional evidence-based review with recommendations article by
Rudmik and colleagues,16 the recommended postoperative care treatments were: nasal
saline irrigations, in-office sinus cavity debridement, and topical nasal steroid sprays.
Because of a relative balance of harm and benefit, options were made for systemic steroids,
systemic antibiotics, and drug-eluting spacers. Because of increased pain and the risk of
rhinitis medicamentosa, the only recommendation against was for the routine use of topical
decongestants. To further refine the optimal postoperative care strategy, further research is
needed to confirm the evidence-based protocol that is proposed and elucidate the ideal
frequency and timing of postoperative follow-up visits. The following sections discuss
the different postoperative care strategies and present the evidence for each topic.
Nasal Saline Irrigations
Nasal douching with saline solutions has been well established as a treatment adjunct in
CRS.17–19 However, the role of saline irrigations in the early postoperative period remains
controversial. Advocates for early postoperative nasal saline irrigations hypothesize that
nasal douching aids with debris removal and softens crusting, which may produce
improved mucociliary clearance and potentially easier in-office debridement. There is
significant variation is the delivery mode, volume, and frequency of saline irrigations:
Delivery modes include squeeze bottles, atomization sprays, and electrical fluid
delivery devices.
The volume of saline douching varies from atomized 2 mL to 240 mL and the
frequency varies from once daily to 4 times daily.
There are no studies that evaluate the optimal postoperative saline irrigation protocol.
Although saline irrigations are safe and well tolerated, potential adverse effects include local
irritation, epistaxis, nasal burning, headaches, ear plugging, and unexpected nasal drainage.
Fig. 1. (A) Complete right middle turbinate lateralization. (B) Synechiae between left
middle turbinate and lateral nasal wall.
1022 Rudmik & Smith
Nasal saline irrigation studies

Six randomized studies have evaluated the impact of saline irrigations on clinical
outcomes following ESS.20–25 All study methodologies were heterogeneous, as they
used different postoperative care protocols with different saline irrigation volumes and
frequencies. Two studies evaluated low-volume postoperative nasal saline irrigations.
A randomized trial (level 2b) by Freeman and colleagues23 demonstrated that the
benefits of postoperative saline irrigations were limited to early endoscopic appear-
ance, specifically a reduction in discharge and crusting, while they failed to demon-
strate any long-term endoscopic improvement such as a reduction in synechiae or
adhesions. However, one criticism of this study was the low-volume saline irriga-
tion protocol (2 mL atomization 3 times a day), which questions whether it provided
a strong enough mechanical debridement to make a difference.
Another randomized (level 2b) trial by Pinto and colleagues21 evaluated 3 post-
operative patient groups (no irrigations, normal saline irrigations, hypertonic
saline irrigations), which irrigated 30 mL 4 times a day following ESS. The results
demonstrated that hypertonic saline produced increased postoperative pain
scores whereas the normal saline irrigations did not offer any additional benefit
compared with the control group. Again, this study used a low-volume irrigation
protocol (30 mL), making it difficult to draw conclusions about the commonly
used large-volume (240 mL) irrigation strategy.
One randomized (level 1b) trial by Liang and colleagues24 evaluated a large-volume
(240 mL daily) saline irrigation protocol and demonstrated that the benefits were
limited to patients with mild CRS, with those patients with moderate to severe CRS
failing to demonstrate a difference in symptoms and endoscopic appearance. This
finding may suggest that patients with moderate to severe CRS often require addi-
tional postoperative medical therapy to control inflammation and reduce symptoms.
Despite some controversy in the literature, most experts agree that there is
a preponderance of benefit over harm, and nasal saline irrigations should be started
within the early postoperative period, usually 24 to 48 hours after ESS. Although large
volume saline irrigation has been demonstrated to be superior to low volume saline
irrigation in the management of CRS,26 the effects of saline volume in the early post-
operative period have not yet been evaluated.
Postoperative In-Office Sinus Cavity Debridement

The sinus cavity following ESS often has a large amount of crusting, old blood, unre-
sorbed dissolvable packing, and retained secretions. This postoperative local environ-
ment is thought to provide a framework for scarring, ostial stenosis, and middle
turbinate lateralization. Debridement of the postoperative sinus cavity is thought to
optimize early mucosal healing by reducing the inflammatory load and lowering the
risk of infection. Debridement technique often includes a rigid nasal endoscope scope
for visualization, and the use of a suction instrument for soft debris and endoscopic
graspers for harder crusts. Most surgeons agree that postoperative sinus debride-
ment is a useful adjunct to maximizing long-term ESS outcomes. Arguments against
debridement include exposing patients to increased pain, potential for mucosal strip-
ping, and other rare adverse events such as epistaxis and syncope.
Postoperative debridement studies

There have been 4 randomized trials evaluating the role of postoperative debridement
after ESS.
An early pilot study (level 2b) by Nilssen and colleagues failed to demonstrate
a clinical benefit of sinus debridement; however, it had several limitations
including being underpowered.27
A recent randomized trial (level 1b) by Bugten and colleagues28 demonstrated
that early postoperative sinus cavity debridement resulted in reduced crust
and middle meatal adhesion rates at 3 months follow-up, and their long-term
follow-up study in 2008 reported that the initial short-term improvements were
stable after a mean of 56 weeks.29
Although most experts agree that postoperative debridement is a useful adjunct to
optimizing ESS outcomes, the timing and frequency of debridement is somewhat
controversial.
A study by Kuhnel and colleagues30 demonstrated that early crust debridement
was associated with underlying mucosal avulsion in 23% of cases, although this
risk was negligible after 2 weeks.
Two subsequent level 1b randomized trials have demonstrated that the optimal
timing for the first postoperative debridement is 1 week following the ESS
procedure.31,32
The randomized trial (level 1b) by Lee and Byun30 demonstrated that patients
who received multiple debridements within the first week received similar
short-term (4 weeks) and long-term (6 months) symptom outcomes compared
with patients with debridement(s) at 1-week intervals. Furthermore, the patients
who received multiple debridements within the first week after ESS reported the
greatest disturbances in socioeconomic activities and had the highest rate of
omitting postoperative clinic visits.
The randomized trial (Level 1b) by Kemppainen and colleagues29 demonstrated
that patients who received 3 sinus cavity debridements within the first week after
ESS had reduced nasal discharge scores compared with patients who received
a debridement at 1 week after ESS.
When evaluating the evidence, the most accepted practice would include a sinus cavity
debridement at 1 week after ESS, while subsequent debridements are often surgeon
dependent and based on the degree of crusting and inflammation (Figs. 2 and 3).
Topical Nasal Steroids

Topical nasal corticosteroid therapy is an integral component of anti-inflammatory CRS
medical therapy. Application techniques include nasal sprays, atomizers, drops, and
irrigations. Common CRS approved topical nasal steroid sprays include fluticasone,
mometasone, and budesonide, while common off-label solutions include budesonide
irrigations (0.5 mg/2 mL or 1 mg/2 mL mixed into 240 mL of saline), prednisolone 1%
ophthalmic drops, dexamethasone 0.1% ophthalmic drops, and ciprofloxacin/dexa-
methasone 0.3%/0.1% otic drops (Table 1). Although these higher-potency off-label
formulations provide increased concentrations of local steroid therapy, the major disad-
vantage is the unknown systemic absorption profile with potential for adrenal suppres-
sion and other long-term systemic steroid effects. Standard first-line therapy typically
uses approved nasal steroid sprays while reserving the off-label formulations for cases
of severe postoperative mucosal inflammation. Furthermore, nasal sprays tend to
provide more “nasal” coverage, whereas irrigations and drops tend to provide improved
“sinus” penetration and may be a better postoperative topical therapy delivery tech-
nique.33 Unlike the use of systemic steroids, standard nasal steroid sprays have minimal
systemic effects and therefore can be used as long-term corticosteroid therapy.
1024 Rudmik & Smith
Fig. 2. Endoscopic appearance at postoperative week 1. (A) Before debridement. (B) After
debridement. (C) Post-debridement maxillary antrostomy.
Topical nasal steroid studies

There have been 4 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (level 1b) eval-
uating topical nasal sprays in the early postoperative period.34–37
Only one study failed to demonstrate a clinical improvement in postoperative
polyp recurrence and symptoms.37
Fig. 3. Endoscopic appearance at postoperative week 3. (A) Middle meatus view. (B)
Ethmoid cavity with view of sphenoidotomy.
Table 1
Options for postoperative topical corticosteroid therapy
Approved nasal sprays Fluticasone propionate (50 mg per spray): 2 sprays each nostril
once a day
Mometasone furoate (50 mg per spray): 2 sprays each nostril
once a day
Budesonide aqua (32 mg per spray): 1 spray each nostril once
a day
Off-label nasal drops Prednisolone 1% ophthalmic drops
Dexamethasone 0.1% ophthalmic drops
Ciprofloxacin/dexamethasone 0.3%/0.1% otic drops
Off-label nasal irrigations Budesonide saline irrigations (0.5 mg/2 mL or 1 mg/2 mL mixed
into 240 mL of saline)
The 3 most recent level 1b trials evaluating postoperative topical steroid sprays
demonstrated a significant clinical improvement following ESS.
Patients with nasal polyps appear to receive the most benefit as polyp recurrence
rate was reduced and time to polyp recurrence was lengthened. The timing for
when to start topical nasal steroid spray therapy is poorly defined; however, each
study reported starting therapy in the period between 2 and 6 weeks after ESS.
Although there are no major drawbacks associated with earlier topical steroid spray
therapy (before 2 weeks after ESS), the limited accessibility as a result of old blood
and crusts would often negate any clinical benefit. Potential adverse effects are rare
and include local irritation, epistaxis, cough, and headache.38
A retrospective study by Del Guadio and Wise39 evaluated 3 postoperative off-
label nasal steroid solutions (dexamethasone ophthalmic drops, prednisolone
ophthalmic drops, and ciprofloxacin/dexamethasone otic drops) in patients under-
going revision ESS who were at high risk for both ostial stenosis and oral steroid
rescue courses. The results demonstrated that off-label steroid drops may lower
the risk of revision sinus surgery and ostial stenosis while reducing the number
of oral steroid rescue episodes. In this study only 1 patient of 36 required discon-
tinuation of medication, because of a reduction in morning cortisol level.
A study by Bhalla and colleagues40 demonstrated a lack of significant adrenal
suppression with the use of budesonide irrigations.
Another recent study by Welch and colleagues41 demonstrated that budesonide
nasal irrigations (1 mg/2 mL in 240 mL saline) following ESS did not alter the
serum cortisol or 24-hour urine cortisol levels.
Despite evidence for the short-term safety of off-label steroid solutions, future
controlled studies will need to elucidate their benefits and long-term safety profile.
Most experts would agree that starting a topical nasal steroid spray between the
first 2 and 6 weeks following ESS is necessary to optimize clinical outcomes by mini-
mizing mucosal inflammation. Off-label high-concentration topical steroid solutions
may reduce the risk of ostial stenosis and the need for an oral steroid rescue, and
therefore may be considered in high-risk patients with severe postoperative mucosal
inflammation.
Systemic Steroids
Patients undergoing ESS for medically recalcitrant CRS typically have significant un-
derlying mucosal inflammation, and experts believe that controlling this inflammation
1026 Rudmik & Smith
in the perioperative period is necessary to optimize clinical outcomes. Although

systemic steroids provide excellent improvement in CRS clinical status, the challenge
remains balancing the benefits with the potential for harm. Potential adverse effects
associated with systemic steroid therapy are listed in Box 2.42
Box 2
List of potential complications of short-course systemic steroids
Elevated blood sugars

Raised intraocular pressure
Mood changes
Insomnia
Avascular necrosis of the hip
Adrenal insufficiency
Decreased bone mineral density43 and cardiovascular disease44 as a result of cumulative
steroid dose over a lifetime
To minimize the risk of adverse events, most experts use short-course protocols
such as durations between 7 and 14 days with moderate doses of 30 to 40 mg. The
use of a tapering dose schedule is controversial, while some experts believe that
therapy limited to less than 14 days does not require a taper. The authors’ short-
course steroid protocol is as follows:
Prednisone
30 mg 4 days
Then 20 mg 4 days
Then 10 mg 4 days
Total duration 5 12 days, cumulative dose 5 240 mg
Alternatively, in a level 1b study on perioperative systemic steroids, Wright and
Agrawal45 used a nontapering short-course protocol of prednisone 30 mg starting
5 days before ESS and continuing for 9 days after ESS (total duration 14 days, cumu-
lative dose 5 420 mg).
Systemic steroids studies

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (level 1b) by Wright and Agrawal45
evaluated the role of perioperative prednisone on endoscopic appearance in patients
with nasal polyposis. The study protocol started patients on 30 mg of prednisone
5 days before ESS and continued therapy for 9 days after ESS, without a taper. In addition
to improved ease of surgery, the results demonstrated significant postoperative improve-
ment in endoscopic appearance, which was most evident at the 2-week post-ESS time
point. The study did not report any significant adverse events. Despite convincing
evidence from this study, the potential side effects of short-term systemic steroid use
must be balanced with the proven benefit in postoperative endoscopic appearance.
Because of the potential for serious adverse effects, the routine use of postopera-
tive systemic steroids is controversial. Most experts would reserve this strategy for
patients with moderate to severe CRS and nasal polyposis who are at high risk for
postoperative complications. After careful patient selection and discussion of the
potential risks, a short course of postoperative systemic steroids could be considered
to minimize mucosal inflammation during the healing period and prevent complica-
tions related to excess mucosal edema and crusting.
Postoperative Antibiotics
Following ESS, the local environment of retained secretions, old blood, temporary
ciliary dysfunction, and incomplete remucosalization all predispose to the develop-
ment of a postoperative infection. Furthermore, the paranasal sinuses of patients
with CRS tend to be colonized with bacteria and biofilm, which may predispose
them to postoperative infection.46,47 Potential sequelae include increased nasal crust-
ing, discharge, and worse short-term symptoms. Traditionally, a course of postoper-
ative antibiotics (7–10 days) has been recommended12,48; however, the literature
regarding their use is conflicting.
Three randomized studies evaluated the role of postoperative antibiotics on ESS
clinical outcomes.
An early randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (level 1b) by Annys
and colleagues49 evaluated a very short course of postoperative antibiotics
(2 days) and demonstrated it had no effect on outcomes.
A recent randomized trial (level 2b) by Jiang and colleagues50 evaluated a longer
course of postoperative antibiotics (amoxicillin/clavulanate 375 mg 3 times per
day 3 weeks) and demonstrated no difference in endoscopic appearance at
the 3-week follow-up period. The disadvantages of this study were a failure to
use a placebo and performing the endoscopic evaluation at 3 weeks, which
would have missed the early postoperative period when antibiotics would have
their greatest benefit.
The most recent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (level 1b) by
Albu and colleagues51 evaluated a long postoperative antibiotic protocol (amox-
icillin-clavulanate 625 mg twice a day 2 weeks). The results from this study
demonstrate that postoperative antibiotics improve patient symptoms within
the first 5 days and endoscopic appearance at the 12-day period. In addition,
there was a significant reduction in sinonasal crust formation.
When using the 2 aforementioned level 1b studies, most experts would agree that
postoperative antibiotics, following ESS, function to optimize early clinical outcomes.
The benefits appear to be limited to the early post-ESS period, as symptoms were
improved at 5 days and endoscopic appearance improved at 12 days. Although the
optimal duration is poorly defined, the evidence suggests that a short 2-day course
has no effect whereas a longer course up to 14 days provides a clinical response. Anti-
biotic choice must take into account common sinonasal pathogens, and usually
involves the use of a penicillin-based agent or macrolide. Future studies need to eluci-
date the ideal duration of postoperative antibiotics after ESS.
Drug-Eluting Middle Meatal Spacers
Nasal crusting, retained secretions, and mucosal edema can limit early topical therapy
following ESS. To improve local drug delivery in the early postoperative period, surgeons
have developed off-label drug-eluting middle meatal spacers to provide a slow release of
continuous topical therapy while removing the potential for patient noncompliance.
Current off-label drug-eluting spacers are produced by the treating surgeon, who deter-
mines the type and dosage of steroid. Therefore, the major disadvantage is unknown drug
release and limited data on systemic absorption. The ideal dose and safety profile must be
evaluated before they can be recommended for routine use.
Three studies evaluated the role of drug-eluting spacers after ESS.52–54
The studies by Kang and colleagues52 (level 2b) and Cote and Wright53 (level 1b)
evaluated postoperative ethmoid cavity packing soaked with topical triamcinolone
1028 Rudmik & Smith
in CRS patients with nasal polyps. The studies demonstrated significant improve-
ments in the endoscopic appearance at both early and late postoperative periods,
as well as reduced polyp recurrence.
The specific protocol used in the level 1b study by Cote and Wright53 included
a triamcinolone-soaked Nasopore spacer (Stryker Canada, Hamilton, ON,
Canada) placed within the ethmoid cavity at the completion of ESS and removed
at the week-1 debridement.
A recent level 1b study by Rudmik et al, utilized an off-label mixture of carboxymeth-
ylcellulose (CMC) foam and dexamethasone (4 ml of 4mg/ml) in patients who under-
went ESS for medically refractory CRS without nasal polyposis.54 The results failed
to demonstrate an advantage of the steroid eluting spacer compared to placebo,
however, the outcomes must be taken in context of the authors postoperative care
protocol which utilized a short dose of systemic steroids and large volume saline
irrigations.
Drug-Eluting Middle Meatal Stents

Drug-eluting stents are being developed for CRS, and they may have significant
benefit in the treatment of this chronic inflammatory disease.55 Potential drawbacks
of stents include51:
Risk of inducing inflammation as a foreign material
Potential for unintended systemic absorption of the medication56
The Propel Sinus Implant (Intersect ENT, Palo Alto, CA, USA) has recently received
approval from the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with medically
refractory CRS who have undergone ESS. The Propel implant is a dissolvable mome-
tasone furoate–eluting stent, which is placed into a dissected ethmoid cavity and
expands to contact the mucosa (Fig. 4). The stent eludes 370 mg of mometasone
over 30 days and dissolves over 30 to 45 days.
Sinus implant/stent studies

A recent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (level 1b) by Murr and
colleagues evaluated the Propel sinus implant following ESS. The study evaluated 43
medically refractory CRS patients with and without nasal polyposis who elected
ESS.57 To prevent confounding effects, patients were not permitted to use either topical
or systemic steroids for 30 days following ESS. Overall, the results demonstrated
Fig. 4. The Propel Sinus Implant (Intersect ENT, Palo Alto, CA, USA). (A) Expanded ex vivo. (B)
Expanded in an ethmoid cavity following ESS. (Courtesy of Intersect ENT, Palo Alto, CA; with
permission.)
a significant reduction in polyp recurrence, adhesions, and mucosal inflammation on

postoperative days 21 and 45. Furthermore, there was no evidence of adrenal
suppression.
There have been 2 subsequent randomized trials (level 1b) evaluating the Propel stent,
both of which demonstrated a reduction in the need for postoperative interventions, lysis
of adhesions, and courses of oral steroid, as well as a reduction in polyp recurrence.58,59
A recent meta-analysis (level 1a) by Han and colleagues54 demonstrated that drug-
eluting stents reduced the need for postoperative interventions by 35% (P 5 .008),
lysis of adhesions by 51% (P 5 .0016), and oral steroid need by 40% (P 5 .0023).60
Drug-eluting stents have shown promising initial results and may play an integral
role in postoperative care following ESS for medically refractory CRS. However, all
studies have primarily evaluated their impact in patients with nasal polyposis and
have not fully evaluated their impact on patients’ symptoms or HRQoL. Future studies
need to evaluate the role of drug-eluting spacers/stents in patients with CRS without
nasal polyposis, as well as HRQoL outcomes.
THE BOTTOM LINE: WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE TELL US?
The evidence suggests that a strong postoperative care protocol would involve using
nasal saline irrigations beginning 24 to 48 hours after ESS, performing an in-office
debridement at 1 week after ESS, and starting a topical nasal steroid spray in the first
1 to 2 weeks after ESS. The need for multiple in-office debridements is often case
dependent, and the surgeon must translate the clinical assessment of healing into the
need for a debridement. For CRS cases with severe mucosal inflammation, the use of
higher-concentration off-label topical steroid solutions, short-course systemic cor-
ticosteroids, or systemic antibiotics may improve clinical outcomes. Recent level 1a
evidence demonstrates that middle meatal drug-eluting stents may significantly im-
prove endoscopic outcomes for medically refractory CRS with nasal polyposis.
REFERENCES
1. Soler ZM, Mace J, Smith TL. Symptom-based presentation of chronic rhinosinu-

sitis and symptom-specific outcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J
Rhinol 2008;22:297–301.
2. Alobid I, Bernal-Sprekelsen M, Mullol J. Chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps:
the role of generic and specific questionnaires on assessing its impact on
patient’s quality of life. Allergy 2008;63:1267–79.
3. Alobid I, Guilemany JM, Mullol J. The impact of chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal
polyposis in quality of life. Front Biosci (Elite Ed) 2009;1:269–76.
4. Birch DS, Saleh HA, Wodehouse T, et al. Assessing the quality of life for patients
with chronic rhinosinusitis using the “Rhinosinusitis Disability Index”. Rhinology
2001;39:191–6.
5. Smith TL, Litvack JR, Hwang PH, et al. Determinants of outcomes of sinus
surgery: a multi-institutional prospective cohort study. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2010;142:55–63.
6. Smith TL, Batra PS, Seiden AM, et al. Evidence supporting endoscopic sinus
surgery in the management of adult chronic rhinosinusitis: a systematic review.
Am J Rhinol 2005;19:537–43.
7. Bhattacharyya N. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic sinus surgery. Curr Opin
Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;6:167–71.
8. Soler ZM, Smith TL. Quality of life outcomes after functional endoscopic sinus
surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2010;43:605–12, x.
1030 Rudmik & Smith
9. Bhattacharyya N. Ambulatory sinus and nasal surgery in the United States:

demographics and perioperative outcomes. Laryngoscope 2010;120:635–8.
10. Kennedy DW. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Technique. Arch Otolaryngol
1985;111:643–9.
11. Fernandes SV. Postoperative care in functional endoscopic sinus surgery? Laryn-
goscope 1999;109:945–8.
12. Kennedy DW. Prognostic factors, outcomes and staging in ethmoid sinus
surgery. Laryngoscope 1992;102:1–18.
13. Lund VJ, MacKay IS. Outcome assessment of endoscopic sinus surgery. J R Soc
Med 1994;87:70–2.
14. Stammberger H. Endoscopic endonasal surgery—concepts in treatment of
recurring rhinosinusitis. Part I. Anatomic and pathophysiologic considerations.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;94:143–7.
15. Inanli S, Tutkun A, Batman C, et al. The effect of endoscopic sinus surgery on
mucociliary activity and healing of maxillary sinus mucosa. Rhinology 2000;38:
120–3.
16. Rudmik L, Soler Z, Orlandi R, et al. Early post-operative care following endo-
scopic sinus surgery: an evidence-based review with recommendations. Int
Forum Allergy Rhinol 2011;1(6):417–30.
17. Harvey R, Hannan SA, Badia L, et al. Nasal saline irrigations for the symptoms of
chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;3:CD006394.
18. Heatley DG, McConnell KE, Kille TL, et al. Nasal irrigation for the alleviation of
sinonasal symptoms. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;125:44–8.
19. Tomooka LT, Murphy C, Davidson TM. Clinical study and literature review of nasal
irrigation. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1189–93.
20. Pigret D, Jankowski R. Management of post-ethmoidectomy crust formation:
randomized single-blind clinical trial comparing pressurized seawater versus
antiseptic/mucolytic saline. Rhinology 1996;34:38–40.
21. Pinto JM, Elwany S, Baroody FM, et al. Effects of saline sprays on symptoms after
endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 2006;20:191–6.
22. Fooanant S, Chaiyasate S, Roongrotwattanasiri K. Comparison on the efficacy of
dexpanthenol in sea water and saline in postoperative endoscopic sinus surgery.
J Med Assoc Thai 2008;91:1558–63.
23. Freeman SR, Sivayoham ES, Jepson K, et al. A preliminary randomised controlled
trial evaluating the efficacy of saline douching following endoscopic sinus
surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:462–5.
24. Liang KL, Su MC, Tseng HC, et al. Impact of pulsatile nasal irrigation on the prog-
nosis of functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2008;37:148–53.
25. Staffieri A, Marino F, Staffieri C, et al. The effects of sulfurous-arsenical-
ferruginous thermal water nasal irrigation in wound healing after functional endo-
scopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis: a prospective randomized study.
Am J Otolaryngol 2008;29:223–9.
26. Pynnonen MA, Mukerji SS, Kim HM, et al. Nasal saline for chronic sinonasal
symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2007;133:1115–20.
27. Nilssen EL, Wardrop P, El-Hakim H, et al. A randomized control trial of post-oper-
ative care following endoscopic sinus surgery: debridement versus no debride-
ment. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:108–11.
28. Bugten V, Nordgard S, Steinsvag S. The effects of debridement after endoscopic
sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 2006;116:2037–43.
29. Bugten V, Nordgard S, Steinsvag S. Long-term effects of postoperative measures

after sinus surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:531–7.
30. Kuhnel T, Hosemann W, Wagner W, et al. How traumatising is mechanical mucous
membrane care after interventions on paranasal sinuses? A histological immuno-
histochemical study. Laryngorhinootologie 1996;75:575–9 [in German].
31. Kemppainen T, Seppa J, Tuomilehto H, et al. Repeated early debridement does
not provide significant symptomatic benefit after ESS. Rhinology 2008;46:
238–42.
32. Lee JY, Byun JY. Relationship between the frequency of postoperative debride-
ment and patient discomfort, healing period, surgical outcomes, and compliance
after endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 2008;118:1868–72.
33. Harvey RJ, Debnath N, Srubiski A, et al. Fluid residuals and drug exposure in
nasal irrigation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141:757–61.
34. Rowe-Jones JM, Medcalf M, Durham SR, et al. Functional endoscopic sinus
surgery: 5 year follow up and results of a prospective, randomised, stratified,
double-blind, placebo controlled study of postoperative fluticasone propionate
aqueous nasal spray. Rhinology 2005;43:2–10.
35. Jorissen M, Bachert C. Effect of corticosteroids on wound healing after endo-
scopic sinus surgery. Rhinology 2009;47:280–6.
36. Stjarne P, Olsson P, Alenius M. Use of mometasone furoate to prevent polyp
relapse after endoscopic sinus surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2009;135:296–302.
37. Dijkstra MD, Ebbens FA, Poublon RM, et al. Fluticasone propionate aqueous
nasal spray does not influence the recurrence rate of chronic rhinosinusitis and
nasal polyps 1 year after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Clin Exp Allergy
2004;34:1395–400.
38. Product information. 2010. Available at: http://www.spfiles.com/pinasonex.pdf.
Accessed July 20, 2012.
39. Del Gaudio JM, Wise SK. Topical steroid drops for the treatment of sinus ostia
stenosis in the postoperative period. Am J Rhinol 2006;20:563–7.
40. Bhalla RK, Payton K, Wright ED. Safety of budesonide in saline sinonasal irri-
gations in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis: lack of
significant adrenal suppression. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;37:
821–5.
41. Welch KC, Thaler ER, Doghramji LL, et al. The effects of serum and urinary
cortisol levels of topical intranasal irrigations with budesonide added to saline
in patients with recurrent polyposis after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol
Allergy 2010;24:26–8.
42. Poetker DM, Reh DD. A comprehensive review of the adverse effects of systemic
corticosteroids. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2010;43:753–68.
43. van Staa TP, Leufkens HG, Cooper C. The epidemiology of corticosteroid-
induced osteoporosis: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2002;13:777–87.
44. Souverein PC, Berard A, Van Staa TP, et al. Use of oral glucocorticoids and risk of
cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease in a population based case-control
study. Heart 2004;90:859–65.
45. Wright ED, Agrawal S. Impact of perioperative systemic steroids on surgical
outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis: evaluation with
the novel Perioperative Sinus Endoscopy (POSE) scoring system. Laryngoscope
2007;117:1–28.
46. Zhang Z, Han D, Zhang S, et al. Biofilms and mucosal healing in postsurgical
patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:506–11.
1032 Rudmik & Smith
47. Jervis-Bardy J, Foreman A, Field J, et al. Impaired mucosal healing and infection
associated with Staphylococcus aureus after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J
Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:549–52.
48. Stammberger H, Posawetz W. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Concept,
indications and results of the Messerklinger technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
1990;247:63–76.
49. Annys E, Jorissen M. Short term effects of antibiotics (Zinnat) after endoscopic
sinus surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 2000;54:23–8.
50. Jiang RS, Liang KL, Yang KY, et al. Postoperative antibiotic care after functional
endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 2008;22:608–12.
51. Albu S, Lucaciu R. Prophylactic antibiotics in endoscopic sinus surgery: A short
follow-up study. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24:306–9.
52. Cote DW, Wright ED. Triamcinolone-impregnated nasal dressing following endo-
scopic sinus surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Laryngoscope 2010;120:1269–73.
53. Kang IG, Yoon BK, Jung JH, et al. The effect of high-dose topical corticosteroid
therapy on prevention of recurrent nasal polyps after revision endoscopic sinus
surgery. Am J Rhinol 2008;22:497–501.
54. Rudmik L, Mace J, Mechor B. Effect of a dexamethasone Sinu-Foam(TM) middle
meatal spacer on endoscopic sinus surgery outcomes: A randomized, double-
blind, placebo-controlled trial. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2012;2:248–51.
55. Bednarski KA, Kuhn FA. Stents and drug-eluting stents. Otolaryngol Clin North
Am 2009;42:857–66, x.
56. Valentine R, Wormald PJ. Are routine dissolvable nasal dressings necessary
following endoscopic sinus surgery? Laryngoscope 2010;120:1920–1.
57. Murr AH, Smith TL, Hwang PH, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel bio-
absorbable, steroid-eluting sinus stent. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2011;1:23–32.
58. Marple BF, Smith TL, Han JK, et al. Advance II: A Prospective, Randomized Study
Assessing Safety and Efficacy of Bioabsorbable Steroid-Releasing Sinus
Implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;146:1004–11.
59. Forwith KD, Chandra RK, Yun PT, Miller SK, Jampel HD, et al. ADVANCE: a multi-
site trial of bioabsorbable steroid-eluting sinus implants. Laryngoscope 2011;
121:2473–80.
60. Han JK, Marple BF, Smith TL, et al. Effect of steroid-releasing sinus implants on
postoperative medical and surgical interventions: an efficacy meta-analysis. Int
Forum Allergy Rhinol 2012.
Functional Rhinoplasty
Daniel E. Cannon, MD*, John S. Rhee, MD, MPH
KEYWORDS
Functional rhinoplasty Evidence-based medicine Nasal valve
Systematic review
KEY POINTS
Subjective patient-reported measures have an important role in the evaluation of nasal
obstruction. Of these measures, the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation and visual
analog scales are the most applicable to nasal valve compromise (NVC).
Several objective measures for nasal obstruction exist, although none of them are widely
accepted as the gold standard. New methods for evaluating nasal physiology, such as
computational fluid dynamics, may prove valuable in the evaluation and treatment of NVC.
In general, there is weak correlation between existing subjective and objective measures of
nasal obstruction and controversy over which are most important in evaluating the efficacy
of treatment.
Surgical treatment of NVC consists of a wide variety of techniques, with evidence for their
efficacy, although better study designs and outcome measures are needed.
PROBLEM/OVERVIEW
Nasal obstruction is a complaint frequently encountered in otolaryngology. This

obstruction can occur as a result of underlying inflammatory or anatomic pathologic
conditions. Inflammatory pathologic conditions include allergic rhinitis, nasal polypo-
sis, and chronic rhinosinusitis. Among the anatomic causes are septal deviation, turbi-
nate hypertrophy, and nasal valve compromise (NVC). The nasal valve was first
described by Mink in the early twentieth century1 but has received increasing attention
recently. It is the narrowest portion of the nasal airway and, therefore, where the most
resistance to airflow occurs.2 It can be divided into external and internal portions
(Fig. 1).3 The external nasal valve is the area in the nasal vestibule formed by the
alar rim, nasal sill, caudal septum, and medial crus of the lower lateral cartilage. The
Financial disclosures/conflicts of interest: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin,
9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA
E-mail address: dcannon@mcw.edu

0030-6665/12/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1034 Cannon & Rhee
Fig. 1. Locations and components of internal and external nasal valves.
internal nasal valve is the area bound by the caudal edge of the upper lateral cartilage,
nasal septum, head of the inferior turbinate, and nasal sill (Fig. 2) and is located
approximately 1.3 cm from the nares.2 It is proposed that the nasal valve serves as
a regulator to prevent airflow from exceeding the capacity of the nose to warm and
humidify inspired air.4,5
Problems with nasal airflow occurring at the nasal valve exhibit both static and
dynamic properties. There can be fixed anatomic obstruction caused by abnormalities
of any of the structures that contribute to the makeup of the nasal valve, including the
septum, turbinates, and nasal cartilages. These abnormalities can exist as a result of
traumatic, congenital, or iatrogenic causes.6 There can also be a dynamic component
to NVC. Bernoulli’s principle states that air flowing into narrowed segments acceler-
ates, leading to a decrease in intraluminal pressure. This phenomenon can contribute
to dynamic collapse of the lateral nasal wall during inspiration, leading to further
compromise of the nasal valve region resulting in obstruction of nasal airflow.2,7 The
difficulty in evaluating patients with NVC is determining whether the problem is the
small diameter of the nasal valve causing fixed obstruction or whether the lack of
rigidity of the lateral nasal wall leading to dynamic collapse is the issue because the
surgical approach may differ depending on the underlying problem.
Fig. 2. Components of internal nasal valve.

Functional Rhinoplasty 1035
Functional rhinoplasty has emerged in the literature as a collective term for proce-
dures that address nasal obstruction occurring at the nasal valve.8 This term serves
to differentiate procedures directed at correcting nasal obstruction from those that
address the cosmetic appearance of the nose and includes techniques that target
the nasal septum (dorsal and caudal portions), lateral nasal wall, and the soft tissue
nasal vestibule. However, in reality, the structure and function of the nose are inti-
mately related. Therefore, procedures performed with the intent to change the
cosmetic appearance of the nose can also affect its function and vice versa.3,9–11
One must be cognizant of this relationship when counseling patients and undertaking
nasal surgery for either cosmetic or functional purposes. Functional rhinoplasty and
nasal valve repair are commonly used as synonymous terms and, thus, are used inter-
changeably for the purposes of this article.

History and Physical Examination
The main symptom of NVC is decreased nasal airflow. However, there are a myriad of
conditions that can present with nasal obstruction. These conditions include infec-
tious, inflammatory, and neoplastic conditions, and the treatment varies depending
on the underlying cause. Therefore, a detailed history should include the timing, onset,
seasonal variation, laterality, prior history of nasal trauma or surgery, and exacerbating
or alleviating factors of nasal obstruction. It is also important to determine the pres-
ence or absence of associated symptoms, such as epistaxis, anosmia, rhinorrhea,
or postnasal drainage. This differentiation can help identify or rule out causes of nasal
obstruction that are not attributable to pathologic conditions of the nasal valve.
There is currently no gold standard objective test to diagnose NVC2; it remains a clin-
ical diagnosis. A general assessment of the external appearance of the nose can iden-
tify problems with the potential to cause nasal obstruction, such as nasal tip ptosis,
a narrow midvault, an inverted-V deformity, or narrowed nostrils. Additional physical
examination techniques can identify abnormalities of the lateral nasal wall related to
weak or malformed upper and/or lower lateral cartilages. Specifically, findings on
physical examination suggestive of NVC include visible inspiratory collapse of the
lateral nasal wall or alar rim. Also, subjective and audible improvement in nasal airflow
during a Cottle maneuver (lateral retraction of the cheek) or modified Cottle maneuver
(intranasal lateralization of the lateral nasal wall) is consistent with NVC.
Anterior rhinoscopy is an adequate intranasal evaluation of the nasal valve region
and will provide information about the position of the septum and size of the turbi-
nates. Nasal endoscopy can be useful to rule out other causes of nasal obstruction
not attributable to NVC if the diagnosis is uncertain but is not routinely indicated. If
surgery is being planned or considered, preoperative photography can be helpful
for patient counseling, preoperative planning, and documentation, even in cases
when the surgical intent is purely functional, but this is especially true if surgery is
being undertaken for both functional and cosmetic purposes.
In patients with NVC, it can be difficult to determine which components of the nasal
valve to address because there are several anatomic structures that contribute.
However, identifying the problematic area can help guide the surgeon in deciding
which procedure is likely to provide the most benefit. In general, functional rhinoplasty
techniques target a specific area or component of the nasal valve. Also, determining
whether obstruction is resulting more from fixed or dynamic obstruction can help the
surgeon decide between a procedure intended to increase the actual diameter of the
nasal valve or one that aims to strengthen a weak lateral wall or alar rim.
1036 Cannon & Rhee
Subjective Measures of Nasal Obstruction

Traditionally, a common method of assessing nasal obstruction and reporting
outcomes of functional nasal surgery is subjective patient-reported measures. For
assessing the efficacy of a surgical intervention, a comparison of preoperative and
postoperative results is often used. In addition, there has been a trend in medicine
toward evaluating quality of life (QOL) in the assessment of disease processes and
the efficacy of treatment.12 Generic health-related QOL can be measured using
scales, such as the Medical Outcomes Study Short Forms (SF-12 and SF-36).13–15
However, disease-specific QOL measures can be superior to generic QOL instru-
ments because they may be more sensitive for the detection and quantification of
small changes.16 There are validated QOL instruments specific for rhinologic disease,
such as the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index,17,18 Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life
Questionnaire,19,20 and the Sinonasal Outcomes Test,21 each of which has been
used in the past for evaluating septal or nasal valve pathologic conditions. These
instruments all include nasal obstruction in their evaluation; however, their primary
purpose is the evaluation of inflammatory nasal disease, which may secondarily result
in nasal obstructive symptoms.
Nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale

The QOL measure most relevant to structurally based nasal valve pathologic condi-
tions is the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale, a disease-specific quality-
of-life instrument developed for the assessment of nasal obstruction with evidence
in support of its validity, reliability, and sensitivity.22 With this instrument, patients
are asked to rate the severity of several nasal symptoms and the results are summed
and scaled. Its original use was in patients undergoing septoplasty who demonstrated
an improvement in disease-specific QOL after surgery.23 Subsequent studies using
the NOSE scale in patients undergoing surgery for NVC also demonstrated statistically
significant improvements in disease-specific QOL.24,25
Visual analog scales

Visual analog scales (VAS) are a common method of subjectively measuring symptoms
in various conditions that have also been used as an evaluation method and outcome
measure in nasal obstruction. In VAS, patients are asked to rate their experience of
symptoms on a linear scale ranging from no obstruction to complete obstruction.26
Multiple studies have shown improvement in VAS for nasal obstruction after nasal
valve repair.4,27 One potential advantage of VAS over other objective tests is that,
for patients with unilateral symptoms, VAS for each side of the nasal cavity can be
assessed separately. Several studies show better correlation between VAS for nasal
obstruction and objective measurement techniques when unilateral VAS is used.28–30
Objective Measures of Nasal Obstruction

Aside from subjective measures, there is also interest in the development and imple-
mentation of validated objective measures to assist in preoperative evaluation and to
better assess surgical outcomes. Several techniques have been developed and vali-
dated to date. Of these, rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry (AR) have been
used most frequently.4,27 Rhinomanometry allows the determination of nasal airway
resistance by simultaneously measuring transnasal pressure drop and nasal airflow.31
This technique has been used to objectively document changes in nasal resistance
after nasal valve surgery. However, it is not in widespread use because of several limi-
tations. These drawbacks include the inability to precisely locate the area of obstruc-
tion and the need for specialized equipment and a well-trained operator.32
AR for nasal obstruction

AR is a technique that uses the measurement of deflected sound waves to provide an
estimate of the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the nasal cavity as a function of the
distance from the nostrils.33 AR is relatively easy to perform and is quick and noninva-
sive. It too has limitations, however. Similar to rhinomanometry, it does require
specialized equipment and an experienced operator. Also, the results obtained are
sensitive to variations in technique and testing conditions.34 Another known limitation
of AR is that it overestimates CSA in areas beyond 5 cm from the nostrils35 or after
constricted regions or areas of drastic changes in nasal anatomy.36 The advantages
of AR make it one of the most common objective methods used to evaluate nasal
patency. However, it has not achieved widespread clinical use because of the limita-
tions noted previously.
Imaging studies for nasal obstruction

Imaging studies, such as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) scans, can have a role in the evaluation of nasal obstruction, with utility in eval-
uating infectious, inflammatory, or neoplastic disease, but have a limited role in the
evaluation of nasal valve pathologic conditions specifically.2 CT imaging can be
used as a method of measuring the nasal valve angle (between the septum and upper
lateral cartilage). When used for this purpose, the most accurate measures are ob-
tained from views other than the traditional coronal view, which may underestimate
the true nasal valve angle. Specifically, a modified view known as the nasal base
view, which uses slices oriented perpendicular to the approximated acoustic axis of
the nose, provides the most accurate information about the nasal valve angle.37
This technique has not been adopted for widespread use because there is subjectivity
in the selection of the acoustic axis and the need to reformat CT images into a nonstan-
dard view. There is also a lack of evidence in regard to its reproducibility, although
studies comparing this method with AR-derived data show good correlation in the
measurement of the nasal valve area.38
Computational fluid dynamics for nasal obstruction

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is emerging as a new method to evaluate nasal
airflow and resistance as well as other physiologic parameters important to the func-
tion of the nose, including particle deposition and air conditioning. CFD is a technology
used widely in engineering as a way to model the motion of fluids. For this technique,
anatomically accurate 3-dimensional computational models of patients’ nasal cavities
are generated from imaging data captured by CT or MRI (Fig. 3). CFD software
programs can then be used to obtain computed measures of airflow, resistance,
heat transfer, and air humidification.
The ability to study multiple parameters of interest under different simulated condi-
tions with minimal cost or inconvenience to patients makes CFD an attractive method
to investigate nasal function. A further benefit of CFD over other objective measures of
nasal function is the ability to determine airflow and other factors of interest at precise
anatomic locations rather than in the nasal cavity as a whole as is done with other
methods. Another exciting extension of CFD technology is the ability to do simulated
surgery on the digital models. The computed nasal geometry can be virtually modified
in a manner reflecting surgical techniques, and, subsequently, new patterns of airflow
and heat and water vapor transport can be calculated.39,40
There are also limitations with current CFD technology. There is additional cost to
obtain the necessary imaging studies. Also, at present, the process of producing
the digital models is time and labor intensive, although as technology has advanced,
1038 Cannon & Rhee
Fig. 3. Digital nasal airway model for use in CFD analysis.
the cost and time to build models has declined and is expected to continue to do so.
Further, although models can be built from either CT or MRI scans, the models based
on CT imaging give better results because of better resolution, thus subjecting
patients to radiation exposure that they would otherwise not receive. CFD also makes
assumptions that are reasonable in many cases but may not always hold true, such as
laminar flow of air within the nasal cavity, fixed and rigid nasal cavity walls, and steady-
state airflow.31
CFD analysis with respect to nasal function is still in its early stages and most
studies are limited in scope and number. Further studies are needed to fully validate
the method and elucidate the correlation between CFD-derived parameters and actual
clinical and patient-reported data. However, this exciting technology holds great
promise and may prove to be a valuable resource in objective preoperative evaluation,
surgical planning, and analysis of surgical outcomes for surgeons performing func-
tional rhinoplasty.
Controversy in Outcome Measures

An area of conflict in many medical conditions is the relationship between what
patients subjectively report and what is objectively observed by physicians or
measured by objective tests.26 This point is especially true in the area of nasal
obstruction. This issue is complex and is not explained by nasal resistance and airflow
alone. Nasal sensation also plays a large role, as demonstrated by studies whereby
nasal sensation has been blocked with local anesthetics in the nasal cavity or vesti-
bule, with studies reporting both increases and decreases in perceived nasal airflow
without any measured effect on nasal resistance.41 This finding suggests that the
sensation of nasal airflow may, under certain circumstances, be independent of any
objectively measurable change in nasal resistance. Therefore, some investigators
have made the argument that subjective patient-reported measures are the most
important factor when evaluating nasal obstruction.2,41,42
Ideally, a gold standard objective test would be quantifiable, reproducible, and have
a strong correlation with subjective measures of nasal airflow.26,31 As described
earlier, such a test has not been reported to date. Independently, subjective and
objective tests have shown validity and reproducibility but there is weak correlation
when compared side by side.26,41,43 It has been proposed that the different methods
of assessment are capturing different aspects of the nasal airway and, therefore, may
be complementary.26 Although an ideal test of nasal patency remains elusive, it may
prove to be the case in the future that a combination of testing methods with both
subjective and objective components best approaches the conditions mentioned
earlier. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing regarding the role of subjective and
objective measures in the evaluation of nasal obstruction.
EVIDENCE-BASED SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
With respect to evidence for the efficacy of functional rhinoplasty, there have been 3
important contributions to the literature in recent years: 2 systematic reviews and 1
clinical consensus statement.
In 2008, Rhee and colleagues27 conducted a systematic review of the existing liter-
ature on the efficacy of modern-day rhinoplasty techniques for the treatment of NVC.
Their review spanned a 25-year period, from 1982 to 2007. Forty-four articles met their
inclusion criteria and were each assigned a level of evidence.
Only 2 of the studies, both cohort studies that compared one surgical technique
to another, achieved level 2b evidence.
The remaining 42 studies were all level 4 evidence and were of varying quality.
Procedures performed in the reviewed studies included spreader grafts, butterfly
onlay grafts, alar batten grafts, dorsal onlay grafts, alar cartilage relocation, alar
rim grafts, suture suspension, flaring sutures, columellar struts, and onlay grafts.
All of the included articles were in support of the efficacy of functional rhinoplasty
techniques for the treatment of NVC, with reported effectiveness ranging from
65% to 100%.
Of the articles, only 6 (14%) reported outcomes using validated patient-reported
questionnaires and 12 (27%) used objective measures, the most common objec-
tive measurement being rhinomanometry.
In 75% of the studies, adjunctive surgical procedures were performed in combi-
nation with nasal valve surgery, including septoplasty, turbinate reduction, func-
tional endoscopic sinus surgery, and orthognathic surgery, which diluted the
ability to measure the efficacy of the functional rhinoplasty component alone.
In all, the investigators assigned the evidence an aggregate grade C recommen-
dation in support of functional rhinoplasty as a treatment of NVC.
An additional corroborating systematic review conducted by Spielmann and

colleagues4 was published in 2009.
The authors noted that there seemed to be a move toward the use of stronger
outcome measures because most of the articles that used validated objective
or subjective measures were published after 2004.
The investigators also noted that much of the published literature on functional
rhinoplasty is more concerned with technical descriptions of surgical technique
rather than establishing evidence of a long-term benefit.
The investigators concluded, similarly to the Rhee and colleagues review afore-
mentioned, that the evidence was generally in favor of the efficacy of functional
rhinoplasty. Again, this finding would correlate to an overall grade C
recommendation.
1040 Cannon & Rhee
The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery’s Consensus

Statement
As a reflection of the lack of cohesiveness among clinicians regarding the diagnosis
and management of pathologic conditions involving the nasal valve as well as the rela-
tive lack of strong evidence in the literature, the American Academy of
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, in 2010, endorsed a clinical consensus
statement aimed at addressing the ambiguities and disparities that exist regarding
NVC.2 It was thought that a consensus statement was more appropriate as opposed
to a clinical practice guideline based on the lack of strong evidence available. The
panel members, all experts in functional nasal surgery, reviewed the existing literature
on NVC, including the 2 reviews previously mentioned. With regard to the literature,
the panel noted that much of the difficulty in analyzing the evidence for nasal valve
repair lies in the wide variety of techniques that were reported as well as the additional
procedures (ie, septoplasty, turbinate reduction, or endoscopic sinus surgery) that are
often done in conjunction with rhinoplasty, making it difficult to determine how much of
the benefit might be attributable to these other interventions. However, they did note
a consistent finding of beneficial effects of nasal valve surgery in all reviewed studies.
Regarding outcome measures, there was a near consensus regarding the relative
importance of patient-reported outcome measures versus objective measures in
measuring the success of an intervention. The general conclusion was that patient-
oriented outcomes are more important than objective outcomes.
Nonsurgical Management
Patients who have NVC and coexisting allergic or inflammatory symptoms or findings
on physical examination suggestive of rhinitis may benefit from treatment of these
conditions or a trial of medical therapy, such as intranasal steroids, before considering
surgical intervention. However, in absence of these symptoms or findings, there is no
role for medical therapy.2 There are additional nonsurgical options that may be consid-
ered, including nasal dilator strips or stents.44–47 The ability of patients to adhere to
these treatments in the long term is unknown. However, these alternatives may be
a good option for patients who do not wish to pursue surgery or are not good candi-
dates for surgery because of medical comorbidities.
Although the gold standard in evidence-based medicine is the randomized controlled

trial,48 this is often not a possibility in surgical research because of the ethical and
practical difficulties of randomizing patients to different surgical procedures in
a blinded fashion. Therefore, surgical outcome studies often rely on retrospective
and observational studies (ie, level 2b evidence) at best, with a preponderance of level
4 and 5 evidence.49 To date, most functional rhinoplasty studies are uncontrolled
studies (level 4 evidence) of varying quality. The heterogeneity of study designs and
outcome measures does not allow pooling of studies to strengthen the existing
evidence. Additionally, many of the studies include simultaneous procedures aimed
to correct nasal obstruction (ie, septoplasty, turbinate reduction), adding another level
of complexity in analyzing the evidence because it is impossible to determine how
much benefit was a result of nasal valve repair itself.
However, it is important to make the distinction between weak evidence and lack of
evidence for efficacy.2 Although the existing evidence is relatively weak, it does show
a consistent benefit of nasal valve repair (grade C recommendation). The reported effi-
cacy ranges from 65% to 100%4,27; there are no studies reporting that functional
rhinoplasty is ineffective. Studies with improved design, including comparison cohorts

and using validated outcome measures, would better establish the efficacy of func-
tional rhinoplasty for the correction of NVC.27,42
REFERENCES
1. Yarlagadda BB, Dolan RW. Nasal valve dysfunction: diagnosis and treatment.
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;19(1):25–9.
2. Rhee JS, Weaver EM, Park SS, et al. Clinical consensus statement: diagnosis and
management of nasal valve compromise. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;
143(1):48–59.
3. Ballert JA, Park SS. Functional rhinoplasty: treatment of the dysfunctional nasal
sidewall. Facial Plast Surg 2006;22(1):49–54.
4. Spielmann PM, White PS, Hussain SS. Surgical techniques for the treatment of
nasal valve collapse: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 2009;119(7):1281–90.
5. Kim DW, Rodriguez-Bruno K. Functional rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Clin North
Am 2009;17(1):115–31, vii.
6. Khosh MM, Jen A, Honrado C, et al. Nasal valve reconstruction: experience in 53
consecutive patients. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6(3):167–71.
7. Wittkopf M, Wittkopf J, Ries WR. The diagnosis and treatment of nasal valve
collapse. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;16(1):10–3.
8. Most SP. Trends in functional rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008;10(6):
410–3.
9. Kim YH, Kim BJ, Jang TY. Use of porous high-density polyethylene (Medpor) for
spreader or extended septal graft in rhinoplasty: aesthetics, functional outcomes,
and long-term complications. Ann Plast Surg 2011;67(5):464–8.
10. Ballert JA, Park SS. Functional considerations in revision rhinoplasty. Facial Plast
Surg 2008;24(3):348–57.
11. Gola R. Functional and esthetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003;27(5):
390–6.
12. Rhee JS, McMullin BT. Outcome measures in facial plastic surgery: patient-
reported and clinical efficacy measures. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008;10(3):
194–207.
13. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of
scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34(3):220–33.
14. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey
(SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and
mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31(3):247–63.
15. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I.
Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30(6):473–83.
16. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health
status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;27(Suppl 3):S217–32.
17. Benninger MS, Senior BA. The development of the rhinosinusitis disability index.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;123(11):1175–9.
18. Senior BA, Glaze C, Benninger MS. Use of the rhinosinusitis disability index
(RSDI) in rhinologic disease. Am J Rhinol 2001;15(1):15–20.
19. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH. Development and testing of a new measure of health
status for clinical trials in rhinoconjunctivitis. Clin Exp Allergy 1991;21(1):77–83.
20. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Andersson B, et al. Comparison of powder and aerosol-
ized budesonide in perennial rhinitis: validation of rhinitis quality of life question-
naire. Ann Allergy 1993;70(3):225–30.
1042 Cannon & Rhee
21. Hopkins C, Gillett S, Slack R, et al. Psychometric validity of the 22-item sinonasal
outcome test. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34(5):447–54.
22. Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, et al. Development and validation of the Nasal
Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2004;130(2):157–63.
23. Stewart MG, Smith TL, Weaver EM, et al. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty:
results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Oto-
laryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130(3):283–90.
24. Rhee JS, Poetker DM, Smith TL, et al. Nasal valve surgery improves disease-
specific quality of life. Laryngoscope 2005;115(3):437–40.
25. Most SP. Analysis of outcomes after functional rhinoplasty using a disease-
specific quality-of-life instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006;8(5):306–9.
26. Lam DJ, James KT, Weaver EM. Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and
subjective measures of the nasal airway. Am J Rhinol 2006;20(5):463–70.
27. Rhee JS, Arganbright JM, McMullin BT, et al. Evidence supporting functional
rhinoplasty or nasal valve repair: a 25-year systematic review. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2008;139(1):10–20.
28. Clarke JD, Hopkins ML, Eccles R. Evidence for correlation of objective and
subjective measures of nasal airflow in patients with common cold. Clin Otolar-
yngol 2005;30(1):35–8.
29. Sipila J, Suonpaa J, Silvoniemi P, et al. Correlations between subjective sensation
of nasal patency and rhinomanometry in both unilateral and total nasal assess-
ment. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1995;57(5):260–3.
30. Hirschberg A, Rezek O. Correlation between objective and subjective assess-
ments of nasal patency. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1998;60(4):
206–11.
31. Pawar SS, Garcia GJ, Kimbell JS, et al. Objective measures in aesthetic and func-
tional nasal surgery: perspectives on nasal form and function. Facial Plast Surg
2010;26(4):320–7.
32. Chandra RK, Patadia MO, Raviv J. Diagnosis of nasal airway obstruction. Otolar-
yngol Clin North Am 2009;42(2):207–25, vii.
33. Hilberg O, Jackson AC, Swift DL, et al. Acoustic rhinometry: evaluation of nasal
cavity geometry by acoustic reflection. J Appl Physiol 1989;66(1):295–303.
34. Clement PA, Gordts F. Standardisation Committee on Objective Assessment of
the Nasal Airway, IRS, and ERS. Consensus report on acoustic rhinometry and
rhinomanometry. Rhinology 2005;43(3):169–79.
35. Terheyden H, Maune S, Mertens J, et al. Acoustic rhinometry: validation by three-
dimensionally reconstructed computer tomographic scans. J Appl Physiol 2000;
89(3):1013–21.
36. Cakmak O, Celik H, Ergin T, et al. Accuracy of acoustic rhinometry measure-
ments. Laryngoscope 2001;111(4 Pt 1):587–94.
37. Poetker DM, Rhee JS, Mocan BO, et al. Computed tomography technique for
evaluation of the nasal valve. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6(4):240–3.
38. Cakmak O, Coskun M, Celik H, et al. Value of acoustic rhinometry for measuring
nasal valve area. Laryngoscope 2003;113(2):295–302.
39. Rhee JS, Pawar SS, Garcia GJ, et al. Toward personalized nasal surgery
using computational fluid dynamics. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2011;13(5):
305–10.
40. Garcia GJ, Rhee JS, Senior BA, et al. Septal deviation and nasal resistance: an
investigation using virtual surgery and computational fluid dynamics. Am J Rhinol
Allergy 2010;24(1):e46–53.
41. Andre RF, Vuyk HD, Ahmed A, et al. Correlation between subjective and objective
evaluation of the nasal airway. A systematic review of the highest level of
evidence. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34(6):518–25.
42. Rhee JS. Measuring outcomes in nasal surgery: realities and possibilities. Arch
Facial Plast Surg 2009;11(6):416–9.
43. Stewart MG, Smith TL. Objective versus subjective outcomes assessment in rhi-
nology. Am J Rhinol 2005;19(5):529–35.
44. Kirkness JP, Wheatley JR, Amis TC. Nasal airflow dynamics: mechanisms and
responses associated with an external nasal dilator strip. Eur Respir J 2000;
15(5):929–36.
45. Peltonen LI, Vento SI, Simola M, et al. Effects of the nasal strip and dilator on
nasal breathing–a study with healthy subjects. Rhinology 2004;42(3):122–5.
46. Roithmann R, Chapnik J, Cole P, et al. Role of the external nasal dilator in the
management of nasal obstruction. Laryngoscope 1998;108(5):712–5.
47. Ellegard E. Mechanical nasal alar dilators. Rhinology 2006;44(4):239–48.
48. McCarthy CM. Randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;127(4):
1707–12.
49. Offer GJ, Perks AG. In search of evidence-based plastic surgery: the problems
faced by the specialty. Br J Plast Surg 2000;53(5):427–33.
Sublingual Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis
a b,
Sarah K. Wise, MD, MSCR , Rodney J. Schlosser, MD *
KEYWORDS
Sublingual immunotherapy Allergic rhinitis Allergy Antigen Allergen Safety
Efficacy Anaphylaxis
KEY POINTS
The following points provide the level of evidence based on the Oxford Center for
Evidence-Based Medicine. Additional critical points are provided and the points here are
Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces symptoms and medication use in allergic
rhinitis. Subgroup analysis shows a benefit for seasonal and perennial antigens, adults
and children, and higher antigen doses (evidence grade 5 1a-).
SLIT has shown a significant benefit for grass pollen and house dust mite antigens
(evidence grade 5 1a-).
Recommended maintenance SLIT dosing for grass pollen is 15 to 25 mg major allergen
per dose. Dosing for other antigens is not established (evidence grade 5 1b).
Most well-designed controlled SLIT trials have been performed with single-antigen
therapy (evidence grade 5 1b).
The safety profile of SLIT for allergic rhinitis remains excellent (evidence grade 5 1a-).
DISEASE OVERVIEW: ALLERGIC RHINITIS
Allergic rhinitis has a significant public health and quality-of-life impact in the United
States. Using data extracted from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Bhattacharyya1 recently reported that 17.8
million adults in the United States (7.9% of the US population) sought care for allergic
rhinitis in 2007. In this report, patients with allergic rhinitis were older, were more
commonly female, had 3 more physician office visits, filled 9 more prescriptions,
and had an overall health care expenditure totaling $1492 per person annually over
a
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Emory University, 550 Peachtree Street, MOT 9th
Floor, Atlanta, GA 30308, USA; b Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University
of South Carolina and Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, 135 Rutledge Avenue, MSC 550,
Charleston, SC 29425, USA
E-mail address: schlossr@musc.edu

0030-6665/12/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc.
1046 Wise & Schlosser
persons without allergic rhinitis.1 Much of the increased health care expenditure for
allergic rhinitis is allocated to pharmacotherapy, including antihistamines, deconges-
tants, topical and oral corticosteroids, and others. Antigen avoidance measures are
also advocated as an adjunct to the overall treatment plan for allergic rhinitis or
perhaps as the sole treatment when a single-antigen trigger can be identified and
avoided appropriately.
Antigen-specific immunotherapy is frequently used as part of the treatment para-
digm for allergic rhinitis. Although sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was first reported
in the United States in 1900, the primary modality of antigen-specific immunotherapy
in the United States over the last century has been subcutaneous immunotherapy
(SCIT).2 The benefits of SCIT for seasonal allergic rhinitis3 and perennial allergic
asthma4 have been demonstrated in numerous randomized controlled trials and re-
cent Cochrane reviews. However, safety concerns with SCIT remain. Systemic reac-
tions with SCIT have been reported in 0.05% to 3.2% of injections and 0.84% to
46.7% of patients, including 23 near-fatal (5.4 per 1 million injections) and 3.4 fatal
events per year (1 per 2.5 million injections).5–8 Concerns regarding systemic and fatal
reactions with SCIT led the British Committee on the Safety of Medicines to question
the safety of this immunotherapy modality in 1986.9 A surge of interest in alternative
methods of antigen-specific immunotherapy followed. Immunotherapy methods,
such as intranasal, bronchial, and oral administration, were investigated but none of
these were as promising as SLIT because of the intolerable side effects or lack of
efficacy.
SLIT has been a predominant immunotherapy modality in Europe for several years.
However, over the last decade, clinical interest in SLIT has been growing rapidly in the
United States. This increased interest and use of SLIT in clinical practice worldwide
has also been accompanied by numerous randomized clinical trials assessing the effi-
cacy of SLIT. This article reviews the evidence behind diagnostic testing for allergic
rhinitis, followed by a discussion of the current evidence supporting SLIT for allergic
rhinitis.
EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSTIC TESTING FOR ALLERGIC

RHINITIS
Allergic rhinitis is preliminarily diagnosed based on

History
Symptom complex
Physical examination
Common symptoms of allergic rhinitis include intermittent clear rhinorrhea, sneez-
ing, and pruritus of the nose. These symptoms may be accompanied by nasal conges-
tion or obstruction and associated itching of the eyes and throat, watery eyes, and skin
or pulmonary symptoms, among others. In the assessment of patients suspected of
having allergic rhinitis, it is important to evaluate potential triggers by inquiring about
the seasonality of symptoms; exacerbating environments or situations; family history
of allergy or asthma; and other associated diseases, like rhinosinusitis, otitis media,
and dermatitis.
Risk Factors for Allergic Rhinitis

Certain risk factors for developing allergic rhinitis have been described and may pro-
vide useful information as part of an allergic rhinitis history. These risk factors include
a family history of atopy, first-born child or only child, cigarette smoke exposure,
SLIT for Allergic Rhinitis 1047
higher socioeconomic status, and total immunoglobulin E (IgE) more than 100 IU/L
before 6 years of age.10 Physical examination findings of allergic rhinitis are relatively
nonspecific and may also be seen with several other sinonasal conditions. Edema of
the nasal mucosa, inferior and middle turbinate hypertrophy, and lymphoid hyper-
trophy of the Waldeyer ring may be seen with allergic rhinitis but may also be present
in upper respiratory infections, rhinosinusitis, and nasal obstructive conditions. In
short, physical examination findings may support the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis
but should not be the sole diagnostic factor for this condition.
Patient History and Environmental Triggers for Allergic Rhinitis

It is important to remember that much of the initial assessment and treatment plan for
patients with allergic rhinitis depends on patient history and environmental triggers
even though items necessary for a complete allergy history and physical examination
vary depending on the environment and geographic location in which patients with
allergic rhinitis are being evaluated and treated. A thorough history and physical exam-
ination leading to a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often sufficient to guide initial avoid-
ance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, if the diagnosis is in question,
specific antigen reactivity information is desired, or allergen immunotherapy is being
considered, skin or in vitro allergy testing should be undertaken.
Skin Testing for Allergic Rhinitis

Skin testing for inhalant allergy is based on the principle that once an antigen crosses
the intact skin or mucosal barrier, the antigen will interact with mast cells in the tissue
and cross-link adjacent specific IgE molecules.11 Depolarization of the mast cell
ensues, and histamine is released in a dose-dependent fashion with respect to the
antigen administered. This histamine release results in the classic wheal and flare
reaction characteristic of the allergy skin test. Measurement of the wheal size allows
a partially quantitative assessment of allergen reactivity. In vitro testing for IgE-
mediated allergy may be undertaken as an alternative to skin testing. The first in vitro
test for specific IgE was the radioallergosorbent test, or RAST test, reported in Lancet
in 1967.12,13 Other examples of in vitro methods for the detection of allergen-specific
IgE include ImmunoCAP and enzyme allergosorbent tests.11,14 Although the specific
techniques used in each of these in vitro methods vary to some degree, a common
principle involves the exposure of patients’ serum to typical antigens in the test
assay. The patients’ IgE binds to these antigens and is then quantified via labeling
and detection techniques specific to the individual assay. Quantification of
allergen-specific IgE is possible because of the techniques used for in vitro allergy
testing.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several articles were published comparing the
advantages and disadvantages of skin testing and in vitro testing for inhalant aller-
gies. In 1988, Ownby15 commented that the results of both skin an in vitro tests
depend largely on the quality of the extracts used to perform the tests. Further,
this article concluded that appropriately performed skin tests represent the best
testing modality for the detection of allergen-specific IgE, whereas in vitro tests
may be used in circumstances when the skin is not appropriate for testing, anaphy-
laxis is expected to occur with skin testing, or patients cannot discontinue medica-
tions that interfere with skin testing. With either skin or in vitro testing, the results of
the test must be correlated with the patients’ history before making a decision
regarding treatment. Although in vitro allergy tests are noted to be less sensitive
than skin testing methods, the use of in vitro test results for allergen-specific
immunotherapy has been shown to be safe in large clinical series.16 Further, although
much of this literature dates back 20 or more years, many of the same arguments are
used in comparisons of skin versus in vitro allergy testing today.
More recent evaluations of skin testing methods question certain aspects of
testing protocols. In a 2008 review, Calabria and Hagan17 reported that the avail-
able literature at that time indicated that when a skin prick test is negative, a positive
intradermal skin test did not correlate well with in vitro and challenge test results,
therefore providing little additional information for the overall diagnosis. However,
these investigators note that a negative intradermal skin test result seems to
have a high negative predictive value. Krouse and colleagues18 generally agree
that negative allergy screens by prick/puncture techniques are typically reliable
with regard to the presence or absence of allergy. These investigators do note,
however, that intradermal testing following a negative skin prick test may provide
useful information if clinical suspicion for allergy remains high, especially in the
case of mold antigens or unusual inhalant reactivity. Finally, special consideration
should be given to skin testing for inhalant allergy when SLIT is planned. Because
of the high safety profile associated with SLIT, in combination with short SLIT esca-
lation protocols, quantification (or semiquantification) of allergy skin test reactivity
is often unnecessary. Compared with skin testing for patients planning to undergo
SCIT, in which intradermal dilutional testing is often performed to best determine
patients’ specific endpoint for each antigen and shorten the escalation period as
much as possible, patients on SLIT will have short escalation protocols with all anti-
gens typically starting at the same dilution, thus obviating extensive dilutional skin
testing.
EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: SLIT FOR ALLERGIC RHINITIS

Efficacy of SLIT
Beginning in 2006, multiple large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-
controlled trials of SLIT efficacy for seasonal allergic rhinitis have been published.
The 2 most widely cited of these initial studies are those by Durham and colleagues19
and Dahl and colleagues.20
The 2006 study reported by Durham and colleagues19 was a multinational, multi-
center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of SLIT in which 855
patients were randomized to 3 Timothy grass tablet dosing regimens or placebo.
Seven-hundred ninety patients completed this trial, which used a preseasonal
and coseasonal dosing schedule. The highest dose regimen (15 mg major aller-
gen) resulted in a significant reduction of allergy symptoms and medication
use. These benefits were seen over the season and the peak season.
Likewise, Dahl and colleagues20 published a multicenter, multinational, random-
ized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Timothy grass SLIT trial that included 634
randomized patients (546 completed). This study also showed a significant
reduction in allergy symptoms and medication use and a significant increase in
well days with SLIT, as compared with placebo.
In 2010, Durham and colleagues21 reported on the long-term effects of Timothy
grass SLIT in patients with allergic rhinitis. In a double-blind, randomized,
placebo-controlled trial of 257 participants, sustained significant benefit in
symptom control and medication use were seen at the 1-year follow-up after 3
years of active SLIT treatment. Further, the sustained benefits were the same
as during the active treatment phase.
Similar results have been seen for SLIT efficacy for seasonal allergic rhinitis in the
pediatric population, a group in which SLIT is potentially attractive because of its
safety, convenience, and avoidance of needles.
A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study published by

Bufe and colleagues22 in 2009 included 253 children aged 5 to 16 years with
grass pollen allergy. With preseasonal and coseasonal administration of Timothy
grass tablets, there were significant reductions in allergic rhinitis symptom and
medication scores and a significant reduction in asthma symptoms. Observed
immunologic changes were similar to those seen in adults.
Similarly, Wahn and colleagues23 showed significant reduction in allergic rhinitis
symptoms and medication use in 266 children aged 5 to 17 years with a 5-grass
tablet in a multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-con-
trolled trial.
Based on the availability of well-conducted, randomized, placebo-controlled trials

of SLIT efficacy, it is not surprising that meta-analyses have also been undertaken
in this realm.
The most recent Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of SLIT

efficacy for allergic rhinitis was performed by Radulovic and colleagues in
201024 and is an update of the highly cited Wilson and colleagues Cochrane
review and meta-analysis initially published in 2003.25 This updated analysis
pooled 49 randomized controlled trials of SLIT, involving 2333 actively treated
and 2256 placebo participants. Using the standard mean difference (SMD)
methodology, significant symptom reduction (SMD -0.49, P<.00001) and signif-
icant reduction in medication requirements (SMD -0.32, P<.00001) were noted,
favoring SLIT over placebo. A subgroup analysis revealed a benefit for seasonal
and perennial allergens as well as a significant benefit for pediatric and adult
patients.
In children, a meta-analysis of SLIT for seasonal allergic rhinitis was published in
2006 by Penagos and colleagues.26 This analysis included 10 randomized
double-blind placebo-controlled trials and a total of 484 participants. Significant
reduction was seen for allergic rhinitis symptoms (SMD 0.56, P 5 .02) and medi-
cation use (SMD 0.76, P 5 .03) with SLIT treatment. Active treatment for greater
than 18 months and treatment with pollen extracts showed a benefit in subgroup
analyses.
With a plethora of randomized controlled SLIT trials available, meta-analyses have

also been published for specific individual antigens. In these meta-analyses, signifi-
cant benefit has been shown in allergic rhinitis symptom reduction and medication
reduction for seasonal grass pollen27 and house dust mite28 SLIT treatment.
Although systematic reviews and meta-analyses are highly regarded as represent-
ing the highest levels of evidence, one should remember that many such meta-
analyses have some degree of heterogeneity among the trials that are included. On
reading any of these systematic reviews or meta-analyses, it is important for the
reader to determine how meaningful this heterogeneity is and to what degree it should
be considered in the overall interpretation of the study conclusions.
One aspect of SLIT efficacy that is often discussed is the treatment with a single
antigen versus multiple antigens. Most controlled SLIT trials are performed with
single-antigen therapy (ie, grass pollen, house dust mite, or birch only). This practice
occurs for several reasons.
1. Compared with practices in the United States, there is a general tendency in Euro-
pean countries to test and treat with fewer antigens for allergic disease, and most of
the available SLIT efficacy studies are performed in European countries.
2. To perform a well-designed clinical trial, it is important to control as many extra-
neous factors as possible. In this vein, a trial that treats only Timothy grass allergy
with SLIT is able to measure Timothy grass pollen counts and correlate patient
symptoms over the course of the season without the need to account for overlap-
ping seasonal symptoms from other tree or weed antigens or year-round symp-
toms from perennial antigens.
3. Designing a clinical trial that incorporates multiple-antigen treatment requires all
participants to have a similar antigen reactivity and symptom pattern for multiple
antigens, which may lead to substantial problems with study enrollment.
The issues with single- versus multiple-antigen SLIT intuitively make sense when
considering randomized placebo-controlled trial design, but translation to clinical
practice in the United States is somewhat problematic. In the United States, general
immunotherapy practice incorporates testing for a panel of at least 8 to 12 (and often
more) common antigens. Treatment vials are then mixed according to the patients’
individual pattern of reactivity, which most often incorporates multiple antigens. How-
ever, direct translation of single-antigen efficacy studies to multiple-antigen therapy is
questioned. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of SLIT with multiple antigens
and even these are often limited to only 2 antigens rather than 10 antigens, which is
the mean number included on an immunotherapy prescription in the United States.29
The few SLIT trials that have been performed with multiple antigens show conflicting
results. For example, a 2009 US study by Amar and colleagues30 was unable to dem-
onstrate a significant benefit of multiple-antigen SLIT over single-antigen SLIT or
placebo. In contrast, in a small open-label controlled study of 58 patients with grass
and birch sensitization, Marogna and colleagues31 found that patients treated with
both grass and birch antigens had significant clinical improvement over those treated
with a single antigen or placebo. Based on the current available evidence, treatment
with multiple-antigen SLIT clearly needs additional investigation before solid clinical
treatment recommendations can be made.
Safety of SLIT
SLIT has an extremely high safety profile. The safety of SLIT, which gives rise to its
tendency to be dosed at home rather than in the physician’s office, is one of the
reasons this modality of allergy immunotherapy is so attractive for working individuals
and children.
Among 60 trials in the 2010 Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis by

Radulovic and colleagues,24 no cases of anaphylaxis occurred and no patient
required epinephrine for treatment of systemic reactions. In this meta-analysis,
a total of 53 participants discontinued treatment because of adverse reactions
(41 out of 824 patients undergoing SLIT and 12 out of 861 placebo patients),
with treatment discontinuation for local reactions being the most common.
In children, Penagos and colleagues26 also reported no lethal or severe reactions
in the 2006 meta-analysis of 10 pediatric SLIT studies for allergic rhinitis, with the
exception of 3 patients with an onset of severe asthma that was thought to be
caused by SLIT overdose.
In the 2009 study by Bufe and colleagues,22 6 patients withdrew from the study
because of a total of 15 adverse events. Two of these withdrawals were in the
placebo group and 3 in the active group were caused by local reactions without
sequelae. There was one withdrawal caused by a serious systemic reaction that
was judged as likely related to active treatment: tongue swelling and itching,
shortness of breath, and tightness. This event did not require the administration
of epinephrine.
The pediatric SLIT study by Wahn and colleagues,23 also published in 2009, re-
ported no serious adverse events related to active treatment with the 5–grass
pollen tablet, although 9 patients in the active treatment group withdrew from
the study because of adverse events.
At this time, there are 11 cases of anaphylaxis reported during SLIT treatment.32
Given available information, Calderon and colleagues32 estimate that more than 1
billion SLIT doses have been taken since the year 2000 and calculate a risk of 1
case of anaphylaxis per 100 million SLIT doses. No deaths have been reported related
to SLIT; nonetheless, practitioners prescribing SLIT should be aware of the potential
for anaphylaxis with any form of immunotherapy. In reporting these episodes of
SLIT-related anaphylaxis, some have speculated on the potential causes for the incite-
ment of such severe reactions32:
Prior systemic reaction or intolerance to immunotherapy
Noncompliance and interruptions in immunotherapy treatment
Severe or uncontrolled asthma
High pollen counts
Use of nonstandardized extracts
Little to no escalation phase
Many of these possible causes for SLIT anaphylaxis have occurred in other research
or clinical situations without leading to anaphylaxis, however. At this time, the true
cause for many of these cases of SLIT anaphylaxis is unknown. Randomized blinded
research is unethical in this realm and, therefore, we remain reliant on case reports
and small case series to advise us of SLIT anaphylaxis potential.
SLIT Dosing
The most advantageous SLIT dose has not yet been determined for most antigens.
The authors do have evidence to support an optimal SCIT maintenance dose of 5 to
20 mg of major allergen per injection, which is commonly defined as “the dose of an
allergen vaccine inducing a clinically relevant effect in most patients without causing
unacceptable side effects.”33,34 However, the desired SLIT maintenance dose to
achieve an appropriate effect while remaining free of side effects has not been
resolved, with the exception of grass pollen extract. As noted, the 2006 large-scale
double-blind placebo-controlled trial of Timothy grass tablets by Durham and col-
leagues19 identified the 15 mg dose to be the most efficacious in alleviating symptoms
of allergic rhinitis and reducing medication use. Didier and colleagues35 reported the
optimum maintenance dose for a 5–grass pollen tablet to be somewhat higher at 25 mg
major allergen per dose. These SLIT per-dose recommendations for grass pollen an-
tigen are similar to the per-dose recommendation for SCIT. However, it should be
noted that SLIT maintenance is commonly dosed daily, whereas SCIT maintenance
injections are typically dosed monthly.
Aside from grass pollen, maintenance doses for SLIT antigens vary greatly and do
not yet have strong supporting evidence. It is clear that SLIT maintenance doses are
typically larger than SCIT maintenance doses, with SLIT maintenance doses being re-
ported up to 500 times that of SCIT maintenance doses.36 Because of differing
maintenance dosing scheduled between SLIT (daily) and SCIT (monthly), it is best to
compare the median monthly dose. Using this measure, the median monthly SLIT
maintenance dose is distinctly higher at approximately 49 times the median monthly
SCIT maintenance dose.
At this time, there is strong evidence to support certain aspects of allergic rhinitis diag-
nosis and SLIT treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, evidence is lacking in other
aspects of this treatment paradigm.
First, available evidence supports the fact that allergic rhinitis has significant public
health and economic impact, with nearly 8% of adults in the United States seeking
care for allergic rhinitis and patients with allergic rhinitis spending nearly $1500
more in health care costs than those without.1
Secondly, when evaluating patients for possible allergic rhinitis, allergy skin testing
is often undertaken in association with a thorough history and physical examination
that guides the diagnosis. In proceeding through the allergy skin testing procedure,
the practitioner should remain aware that with negative skin prick test results, a subse-
quent positive intradermal skin test does not correlate well with in vitro or challenge
tests and provides little additional information in the diagnosis of allergy, whereas
a negative intradermal skin test result has a high negative predictive value.17
Multiple large-scale single-antigen SLIT efficacy studies have been performed and
show significant reduction in allergy symptoms and medication use.19,20,22,23 These
studies are largely well designed, randomized, double blind, and placebo controlled.
In support of the SLIT efficacy evidence from individual randomized controlled trials,
several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also been performed. The
evidence supporting SLIT for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, and for adults
and pediatric patients, is strong.24,26 In addition, the clinical benefits of grass pollen
SLIT beyond the active treatment period have been documented21 as have appro-
priate dose ranges for grass pollen SLIT.19,35 Less clear, however, is the translation
of single-antigen SLIT efficacy results to clinical practice that incorporates multiple-
antigen SLIT prescriptions as well as optimal dosing for antigens other than grass
pollen. These areas deserve substantial future investigation before there is solid
evidence to support clinical treatment decisions.
The safety of SLIT is well documented, with anaphylaxis risks distinctly lower than
those historically quoted for SCIT. In addition, no lethal events have been reported
related to SLIT. However, SLIT-related anaphylaxis events have been documented
in case reports and small case series,32 and we must remain vigilant of the safety
concerns with any form of immunotherapy.
CRITICAL POINTS WITH EVIDENCE GRADE
Allergic rhinitis is a major public health issue with significant health care costs1
(evidence grade 5 2c).
With negative skin prick test results, intradermal skin tests provide little additional
information for overall allergy diagnosis17 (evidence grade 5 4).
SLIT reduces symptoms and medication use in allergic rhinitis. Subgroup anal-
ysis shows a benefit for seasonal and perennial antigens, adults and children,
and higher antigen doses (evidence grade 5 1a-).
SLIT has shown a significant benefit for grass pollen and house dust mite anti-
gens (evidence grade 5 1a-).
Recommended maintenance SLIT dosing for grass pollen is 15 to 25 mg major

allergen per dose.19,35 Dosing for other antigens is not established (evidence
grade 5 1b).
Most well-designed controlled SLIT trials have been performed with single-
antigen therapy (evidence grade 5 1b). Controlled trials of multiple-antigen
SLIT are lacking. Direct translation of single-antigen SLIT efficacy studies to
multiple-antigen SLIT clinical practice is difficult.
The safety profile of SLIT for allergic rhinitis remains excellent (evidence grade 5 1a-).
Anaphylaxis has been reported with SLIT (evidence grade 5 5).
REFERENCES
1. Bhattacharyya N. Incremental healthcare utilization and expenditures for allergic

rhinitis in the United States. Laryngoscope 2011;121:1830–3.
2. Curtis H. The immunizing cure of hayfever. Med News 1900;77:16–8.
3. Calderon M, Alves B, Jacobson M, et al. Allergen injection immunotherapy for
seasonal allergic rhinitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):CD001936.
4. Abramson M, Puy R, Weiner J. Injection allergen immunotherapy for asthma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(8):CD001186.
5. Cox L. Sublingual immunotherapy and allergic rhinitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep
2008;8:102–10.
6. Stewart G, Lockey R. Systemic reactions from allergen immunotherapy. J Allergy
Clin Immunol 1992;90:567–78.
7. Amin H, Liss G, Bernstein D. Evaluation of near-fatal reactions to allergen immu-
notherapy injections. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;117:169–75.
8. Bernstein D, Wanner M, Borish L, et al. Twelve-year survey of fatal reactions to
allergen injections and skin testing: 1990-2001. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004;
113:1129–36.
9. Committee on the Safety of Medicines update: desensitizing vaccines. Br Med J
1986;293:948.
10. Skoner D. Allergic rhinitis: definition, epidemiology, pathophysiology, detection,
and diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001;108:S2–8.
11. Shearer W. Specific diagnostic modalities: IgE, skin tests, and RAST. J Allergy
Clin Immunol 1989;84:1112–6.
12. Wide L, Bennich H, Johansson S. Diagnosis of allergy by an in-vitro test for
allergen antibodies. Lancet 1967;25:1105–7.
13. Kemeny D. Tests for immune reactivity in allergy. Curr Opin Immunol 1990;2:910–6.
14. Ewan P, Cooke D. Evaluation of a capsulated hydrophilic carrier polymer (the
ImmunoCAP) for measurement of specific IgE antibodies. Allergy 1990;45:22–9.
15. Ownby D. Allergy testing: in vivo versus in vitro. Pediatr Clin North Am 1988;
35(5):995–1009.
16. Yeoh K, Wang D, Gordon B. Safety and efficacy of radioallergosorbent test-based
allergen immunotherapy in treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis and asthma.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131:673–8.
17. Calabria C, Hagan L. The role of intradermal skin testing in inhalant allergy. Ann
Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008;101:337–47.
18. Krouse J, Stachler R, Shah A. Current in vivo and in vitro screens for inhalant
allergy. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2003;36:855–68.
19. Durham S, Yang W, Pedersen M, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy with once-daily
grass allergen tablets: a randomized controlled trial in seasonal allergic rhinocon-
junctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;117:802–9.
20. Dahl R, Kapp A, Colombo G, et al. Efficacy and safety of sublingual immuno-
therapy with grass allergen tablets for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;118:434–40.
21. Durham S, Emminger W, Capp A, et al. Long-term clinical efficacy in grass
pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis after treatment with SQ-standardized grass
allergy immunotherapy tablet. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125:121–8.
22. Bufe A, Eberle P, Franke-Beckmann E, et al. Safety and efficacy in children of an
SQ-standardized grass allergen tablet for sublingual immunotherapy. J Allergy
Clin Immunol 2009;123:167–73.
23. Wahn U, Tabar A, Kuna P, et al. Efficacy and safety of 5-grass-pollen sublingual
immunotherapy tablets in pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Im-
munol 2009;123:160–6.
24. Radulovic S, Calderon M, Wilson D, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic
rhinitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(12):CD002893.
25. Wilson D, Torres L, Durham S. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis. Co-
chrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(2):CD0002893.
26. Penagos M, Compalati E, Tarantini F, et al. Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy
in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in pediatric patients 3 to 18 years of age:
a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials. Ann
Allergy Asthma Immunol 2006;97:141–8.
27. Di Bona D, Plaia A, Scafidi V, et al. Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy with
grass allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-anal-
ysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;126:558–66.
28. Compalati E, Passalacqua G, Bonini M, et al. The efficacy of sublingual immuno-
therapy for house dust mites respiratory allergy: results of a GA2LEN meta-anal-
ysis. Allergy 2009;64:1570–9.
29. Nelson H. Multiantigen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma. J Allergy
Clin Immunol 2009;123:763–9.
30. Amar S, Harbeck R, Sills M, et al. Response to sublingual immunotherapy with
grass pollen extract: monotherapy versus combination in a multiallergen extract.
J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;124:150–6.
31. Marogna M, Spadolini I, Massolo A, et al. Effects of sublingual immunotherapy for
multiple or single allergens in polysensitized patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immu-
nol 2007;98:274–80.
32. Calderón M, Simons F, Malling H, et al. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy:
mode of action and its relationship with the safety profile. Allergy 2012;67(3):
302–11.
33. van Rhee R. Indoor allergens: relevance of major allergen measurements and
standardization. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;119:270–7.
34. Bousquet J, Lockey R, Malling H. Allergen immunotherapy: therapeutic vaccines
for allergic diseases. A WHO position paper. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998;102:
558–62.
35. Didier A, Malling H, Worm M, et al. Optimal dose, efficacy, and safety of once-
daily sublingual immunotherapy with a 5-grass pollen tablet for seasonal allergic
rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:1338–45.
36. Cox L, Linnemann D, Nolte H, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy: a comprehensive
review. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;117:1021–35.
Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Stacey L. Ishman, MD, MPH
KEYWORDS
Pediatric Children Sleep-disordered breathing Obstructive sleep apnea
Tonsillectomy
KEY POINTS
History and physical examination are not sufficient to differentiate between snoring and
obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
Nocturnal in-laboratory polysomnography remains the gold standard for diagnosis of
OSA.
Adenotonsillectomy is the recommended initial treatment for OSA and sleep-disordered
breathing for healthy children, even in those with risk factors associated with persistent
pediatric OSA such as obesity.
Efficacy data for partial tonsillectomy are limited despite multiple studies showing
reduced postoperative bleeding and recovery time.
Bariatric surgery is an option for extremely obese adolescents.
Medical treatment may be a good option for mild OSA, either primary or persistent after
adenotonsillectomy; although, more data are necessary.
CPAP is an effective therapy in children, but similar to adults, adherence is a significant
issue, and there may be facial side effects in children with long-term use.
OVERVIEW
Although obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was described in literature as early as the
1700s, the first report of pediatric OSA was not published until 1976 in a case series
of 8 children.1 Since that time, much has been learned about OSA in children; how-
ever, there remain significant gaps in the understanding and evidence for the diag-
nosis, treatment, and management of pediatric OSA.
Disclosures. Funding sources: None.

Conflict of interest: Nothing.
Departments of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Pediatrics and Internal Medicine,
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 601
North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
E-mail address: Sishman1@jhmi.edu

1056 Ishman
Recent prospective general pediatric population studies using polysomnography

(PSG) for diagnosis have found that the prevalence of pediatric OSA ranges from
1.2% to 5.7%.2–4 These estimates are in keeping with previous estimates and similar
to the estimates of symptomatic OSA in adults.5 In addition, estimates of sleep-
disordered breathing (SDB), which includes both OSA and snoring, are around 12%.6
Epidemiology
The epidemiology of OSA has also been investigated in a systematic review that
suggests that there is a male predominance in pediatric OSA, especially in older
boys;7 although, several large studies have found no difference in the prevalence by
sex.8–10 It is also suggested that age is a mediator of this relationship, as those studies
including older children were more likely to find an increased rate of SDB in boys.7 In
addition, minority status has been associated with increased prevalence of SDB, with
multiple studies showing that black children are more likely to have SDB than white
children.2,11 Finally, comorbid factors such as obesity, craniofacial deformity, genetic
syndrome status, and metabolic disease have also been associated with an increased
incidence of SDB in children and adults (Table 1).
Sequelae to Pediatric Sleep Apnea

Most importantly, untreated OSA is associated with a number of sequelae, including
cognitive deficits, hyperactivity, cardiovascular consequences, and inflammation.12
Studies of neuropsychiatric function in children with SDB have almost universally
found cognitive deficits in these children. Two representative prospective studies
characterized these deficits and found lower general intelligence, learning, and
memory results; decreased language and verbal skills; and diminished visual and
auditory attention.13,14 In addition, school performance has been shown to improve
after treatment of SDB with adenotonsillectomy.15
Behavioral issues, and especially hyperactivity, have also been widely associated
with SDB and OSA.13,16 In these prospective studies, behavioral issues included
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, as diagnosed by psychiatric interview),
Table 1
Epidemiologic risk factors for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea syndrome
Adenotonsillar Hypertrophy Increased Airway Resistance

Obesity Fatty infiltration of airway, abnormal ventilatory control
Race (African American) Craniofacial structure, socioeconomic
Gender (male) Slight male predominance in prepubertal children, which
increases markedly after puberty
Prematurity Neurologic impairment, adverse craniofacial growth,
abnormal ventilatory control
Craniofacial dysmorphology Increased airway resistance
Neurologic disorders Abnormal motor control of the upper airway
Nasal/pharyngeal inflammation Allergy or infection increasing airway resistance
Socioeconomic/environmental Neighborhood disadvantage, passive cigarette smoke,
indoor allergens, sleep quality (noise, stress)
Family history of OSAS Heritable craniofacial structure, neuromuscular
compensation, arousal threshold, ventilatory control
Abbreviation: OSAS, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

From Katz ES, D’Ambrosio CM. Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Clin Chest Med 2010;31:222;
with permission.
Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea 1057
depression, daytime sleepiness (by subjective report and objective multiple sleep
latency testing), aggression, and oppositional and social problems. In addition, both
behavioral issues and cognitive deficits were improved after adenotonsillectomy
and were shown to have sustained improvement in a study that followed patients
for 1 year after surgery.16
Comorbid medical conditions with pediatric sleep apnea

While the association between OSA and cardiovascular disease is well described in
the adult literature, this association is not as well understood in children. Cardiac
abnormalities of both the right and left ventricles have been reported and have been
associated with postsurgical respiratory complications.17 In addition, blood pressure
elevations, both daytime and nighttime, have been correlated with OSA in children.18
Autonomic dysfunction has also been reported in children with OSA during both wake
and sleep.19,20
There is increasing recognition of the relationship between obesity and SDB and the
risk of obesity in children after adenotonsillectomy. The traditional picture of children
with OSA often included a population of children with failure to thrive. In these under-
weight children, the recognition that there was often a growth spurt after adenotonsil-
lectomy was reported as a positive outcome of surgery. More recently, this same
increase in weight after adenotonsillectomy has led to growing concern that normal
weight and obese children are becoming overweight or more obese after surgery.21
Dissimilarities in child and adult sleep apnea

Differences between adult and pediatric SDB also include significant dissimilarities in
respiratory events. As children are more likely to have hypopneas than discrete
apneas, arousals are uncommon, and desaturations are less common than in adults.
Children may also have long periods of flow-limited breathing that do not meet the
definition of a respiratory event, but reflect partially obstructed breathing. In addition,
children are more likely to have rapid eye movement (REM)-only disease than adults,
which makes nap studies, either oximetry or polysomnography, problematic, as it will
often not capture any significant REM sleep. Several large population studies have
been performed to determine normative data for pediatric sleep and are reported in
composite in Table 2.22

Clinical History
Multiple studies have looked at the effectiveness of history and physical examination in
differentiating OSA from snoring and found that neither is effective in reliably sepa-
rating the two.23 An evaluation of clinical history in 480 patients who underwent
concomitant home 16-channel polysomnography found that clinical symptoms, either
solo or in combination, had a low sensitivity for diagnosis of OSA.24 A smaller study of
83 patients with sleep study data found a statistically significant increase in the risk
ratio (RR) for OSA when parents report the need to shake their children (RR 5 1.94),
the presence of witnessed apneas (RR 5 1.63), and witnessed struggle to breathe
(RR 5 1.53), but none of these factors was found to be sufficient to predict OSA.25
Additional measures, such as waist circumference and body mass index (BMI) z-score,
have also been found to have a poor clinical correlation with symptoms of SDB.26
The use of surveys to screen for OSA has also been investigated with mixed results.
The pediatric sleep questionnaire (PSQ) survey has shown reasonable sensitivity
(78%) and specificity (72%) when compared with sleep study results and has been
recommended as a screening tool with the caveat that subsequent definitive
1058 Ishman
Table 2
Normal polysomnographic data for otherwise healthy children
Sleep
EEG arousal index (per h TST) 93
Sleep efficiency (%) 89 7
Stage 1 (% TST) 53
Stage 2 (% TST) 42 8
Slow wave sleep (% TST) 26 8
REM sleep (% TST) 20 5
REM cycles 41
Periodic leg movement index (per h TST) 11
Respiratory
Obstructive apnea index (per h TST) 0.0 0.1
Obstructive apnea/hypopnea index (per h TST) 0.1 0.1
Central apnea index (per h TST) 0.5 0.5
PETCO2 50 mm Hg (% TST) 2.8 11.3
Peak PETCO2 (mm Hg) 46 3
SoO2 >95% (% TST) 99.6 1
SoO2 90%–95% (% TST) 0.4 1
SoO2 <90% (% TST) 0.05 0.2
Desaturation index (4%/h TST) 0.4 0.8
SoO2 Nadir (%) 93 4
Data are presented as mean standard deviation.

Abbreviations: EEG, electroencephalograph; REM, rapid eye movement; TST, total sleep time.
From Katz ES, D’Ambrosio CM. Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Clin Chest Med 2010;31:
221–34.
diagnostic testing would still be recommended if positive.27 The OSA-18, a validated

quality-of-life survey frequently used in pediatric otolaryngology, was also evaluated
as a screening tool for moderate-to-severe OSA in 334 children and found to have
poor sensitivity at 40%, with a negative predictive value of only 73%.28
Polysomnography
The gold standard for diagnosis is an attended, in-laboratory, nighttime polysomno-
gram.6,23,29 The practice parameter for respiratory PSG indications published by the
American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) in 2011 reviewed 45 studies with
PSG data before and after OSA treatment and found test–retest validity or improve-
ment in PSG parameters to be robust in all 45 studies.29
Several studies have investigated the reliability of a single pediatric nocturnal sleep
study30–36 to determine if PSG has good test–retest reliability/consistency. This is
important, as adult sleep study testing has found a first night effect, in which adults
do not sleep as well during their first sleep study; thus sleep efficiency and architecture
may underestimate OSA severity. In the pediatric studies, however, there were only
minimal differences in measures of OSA severity, suggesting that a single night of
PSG evaluation is adequate. However, while respiratory parameters were fairly
constant, sleep architecture was significantly different between nights.
Additional validity measures have also been evaluated, including construct validity,
a measure of whether the PSG is a true reflection of SDB, and convergent validity,
which looks for evidence that 2 tests measuring the same problem move in the same
direction (ie, the PSG and tests of outcomes like sleepiness and cognition). These eval-
uations have found that many measures change consistently when OSA is present, like
sleepiness, neurocognitive outcomes, and quality of life.12 Despite this, disease
severity often does not correspond with degree of change in these outcomes.
Home sleep studies, also known as ambulatory PSGs, are approved for use in adults
with high pretest probability of OSA, but they are not currently recommended for chil-
dren by any of the current guidelines. There are few studies looking at home studies in
children. The largest looked at 850 children between ages 8 and 11 years of age who
underwent 4-channel ambulatory PSG, which included oximetry, heart rate, body
position, and inductance plesmography. In this case, 94% of the home studies were
found to be technically satisfactory.11 The same study also had 55 patients who under-
went in-laboratory 16-channel sleep studies; although, little is reported about this
group. Based on these 55 patients, the study investigators reported that the home
studies were sensitive at 88% and highly specific at 98% for an apnea–hypopnea
index (AHI) greater than 5 events per hour as determined on the in-laboratory studies.
Several other studies have investigated home studies in the sleep laboratory37 or
looked at a reduced number of channels from an in-laboratory study.38 The first of
these studies was performed on only 12 children ages 3 to 6 years and found to
have poor specificity at 0%.37 The second study looked at 30 children each with
normal, mild/moderate OSA and severe OSA using only the oximetry and dual respi-
ratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) bands and determined that there was
correct classification of SDB category in 83% with a false-negative rate of only
8%.38 It is unclear from the current data whether studies are feasible in children
between 2 and 7 years of age, when tonsillar hypertrophy is most prominent.
In contrast, investigations of nap PSG have found that sensitivity ranged from 69%
to 75%, while specificity ranged from 60% to 100%.39–41 Because of this, the AASM
does not recommend nap polysomnography as the sole method of diagnosis in chil-
dren, as they are not as reliable as in-laboratory PSGs.29 In addition, nap studies have
been found to underestimate OSA severity, especially as they often do not include any
significant REM sleep. For this reason, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
suggests that nap polysomnography can be useful if it is positive for OSA, even if
severity is inaccurate, but that negative studies should prompt a nocturnal PSG.23
Alternate Measures
Cardiovascular monitoring, including heart rate variability and pulse transit time, has
also been evaluated for diagnosis of pediatric OSA with variable suboptimal rates of
sensitivity and specificity.42–44 One particular technique, peripheral arterial tonometry,
appeared promising as a method to identify electroencephalographic arousals
with sensitivity of 95% but was found to have poor specificity at 35%.45 Refinement
of these techniques is necessary before they can be considered for screening or
diagnosis.
Audiotaping or videotaping, nocturnal oximetry, and nap polysomnography are all
noted to be useful if they are positive for witnessed apneas, desaturations or obstruc-
tive events, but to have poor predictive value when the results are negative, leading to
the suggestion that those who screen negative by these methods be referred for in-
laboratory PSG.23 In addition, determination of disease severity is limited or unable
to be quantified by these techniques.
An initial study of nap oximetry found it to be an accurate screening tool for OSA in
children in whom it was positive,46 leading the AAP to state that positive nocturnal oxi-
metry could be used to diagnose OSA. However, the practice guidelines went on to
recommend that children with negative findings on this screening undergo further
1060 Ishman
testing with a full PSG.22 Since that time, 2 additional studies have compared oximetry
and PSG results.47,48 The first looked at 230 patients and concluded that nocturnal
oximetry could be used to estimate disease severity in patients who screened positive,
but 78% of the children in this study had normal or indeterminate studies and therefore
went on to have a full PSG.
EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICAL MANAGEMENT OR SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Adenotonsillectomy for Sleep Apnea
Consensus statements from the AAP23 and American Academy of Otolaryngology –
Head and Neck Surgery49 agree that the primary treatment of OSA in healthy children
over age 2 years is adenotonsillectomy. They exclude infants from these recommen-
dations, because adenotonsillar hypertrophy is uncommon in this population. Addi-
tionally, the differential and treatment options for infants are significantly different
than for older children. Additional exclusions include children with significant comor-
bidities such as craniofacial abnormalities, neuromuscular disease, genetic or meta-
bolic syndromes, and cerebral palsy.
While adenotonsillectomy was previously assumed to resolve SDB in almost all
healthy children, the most recent systematic review of adenotonsillectomy as treat-
ment for OSA suggests that surgery may not be as curative as previously thought,
with up to 34% of children found to have a respiratory disturbance index (RDI) of at
least 5 after surgery.50 In this same review, significant differences were seen in the
resolution rates of SDB in uncomplicated children at 74% versus children with comor-
bidities (eg, morbid obesity, severe OSA, and age less than 3 years) at 39%. Children
with craniofacial syndromes, trisomy 21, and neuromuscular disorders were not
included in this systematic review.
There has been debate regarding the role of adenotonsillectomy in obese children.
While there are not many studies measuring the effect of tonsil and adenoid removal in
obese patients, multiple studies have found that obese children are more likely to have
persistent pediatric OSA than nonobese children.50 A meta-analysis of 4 studies and
110 obese children found that 51% had an AHI greater than 5 events per hour after
adenotonsillectomy, about 15% higher than the rate of persistent OSA found in the
systematic review mentioned previously.50,51
Complications associated with adenotonsillectomy include immediate and delayed
bleeding, with rates of primary bleeding from 0.2% to 2.2% and secondary hemorrhage
0.1% to 3%.52 Intraoperative complications include injury to teeth and surrounding
tissues, difficulty with intubation, aspiration, airway fire, and cardiac arrest.49 After
surgery, complications frequently noted include nausea, vomiting, dehydration, pain,
pain sounds redundant. Possibly ear pain, systematic pain, voice and swallowing
issues, velopharyngeal insufficiency, and need for extended recovery or readmission.
Less common complications include nasopharyngeal stenosis, postobstructive
pulmonary edema, injury to surrounding arteries, Grisel syndrome (atlanto–axial
subluxation), and Eagle syndrome (neck pain).49 Mortality rates after adenotonsillec-
tomy range from 1 death per 16,000 surgeries to 1 death per 35,000 surgeries.53 A
review of tonsillectomy malpractice claims found bleeding after surgery to be the
most common complaint (34%), followed by anoxic injury (17%), functional deficits
(16%), and medication issues leading to death.54
Partial Tonsillectomy for SDB

More limited treatment of SDB has also been reported using tonsillotomy or partial
tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy alone. The rationale behind the use of partial tonsil
removal is based on a desire to reduce the pain and bleeding rates associated with
complete tonsil removal. Most studies of partial tonsillectomy focus on the effect on
recovery and morbidity after the procedures, but few have reported sleep study results
before and after surgery. A small series of 14 patients found 93% to have an AHI less
than 1 after surgery.55 A second compared 15 children, each undergoing partial versus
complete tonsillectomy, but used multiple methods for quantification of SDB (overnight
PSG versus nap PSG versus home studies) leading to significant methodological
issues.56 In this study, only 5 of 15 (33%) of the partial removal patients and 4 of 15
(27%) of complete removal patients had a postoperative AHI of greater than or equal
to 5. While the residual OSA rates for both groups are higher than typically reported
in other studies, the study investigators did find the results from the 2 methods to be
equivalent. A large prospective study of tonsil bleeding rates in Austria looked at
9405 patients, including adults, and found that the bleeding rate for complete tonsillec-
tomy was 15.0%, with 4.6% returning to the operating room, versus 2.3% for partial
tonsillectomy and only 0.9% returning to the operating room.57 Pain is also noted to
be lower in most studies comparing tonsillectomy and partial tonsillectomy.58,59
In addition to the lack of efficacy data, partial tonsil removal carries a risk of tonsillar
regrowth that has been reported to range from 0.5% to 17%.60–62 Time to re-evaluation
ranged from 1 to 18 months in the study with the highest regrowth rate (17%), 1.2 years
in the lowest (0.5%), and 4 years for a study of 375 children with yearly evaluations
(7.2%). In the latter study, 20 of 375 patients subsequently underwent completion
tonsillectomy.62 These studies suggest that the risk of tonsillar regrowth is high enough
that children should be monitored for recurrence of OSA signs and symptoms.
Adenoidectomy
Similarly, there are no level 1 studies looking at the efficacy of adenoidectomy alone
for the treatment of OSA or SDB. However, several studies have looked at follow-up
after adenoidectomy performed without tonsillectomy. A retrospective survey of 206
parents of children who had undergone adenoidectomy alone was performed and
found that symptomatic improvement was reported to be approximately 55% for
shoring, 78% for nasal obstruction, and 82% for obstructed sleep.63 Subsequently,
36 of these children were then evaluated in the office. Of the 16 with no improvement
or worsening of symptoms, nasal pathology was most commonly seen, tonsil hyper-
trophy in 7/16. Adenoid hypertrophy seen in 15% to 25% of children regardless of
symptoms. A second study looked at the likelihood of future tonsillectomy or revision
adenoidectomy in 100 children, 48 of whom had SDB. They found that 38% of children
with SDB subsequently underwent surgery, including tonsillectomy and/or revision
adenoidectomy, versus 19% of those with nonobstructive symptoms.64 Both of these
studies suggest that adenoidectomy alone may be a viable option for a subset of chil-
dren, but neither clearly delineates which children are best treated with adenoidec-
tomy alone versus adenotonsillectomy. They also highlight the fact that regrowth of
adenoids and obstructive symptoms can occur, especially in children who have their
adenoids removed before 6 years of age.
Additional Sleep Surgery/Bariatric Surgery

Additional procedures have been reported to treat children with comorbidities such as
Down syndrome, neurologic impairment, and obesity, in addition to children with
persistent OSA after adenotonsillectomy. These include:
Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP)
Nasal turbinate reduction
1062 Ishman
Lingual tonsillectomy
Hyoid myotomy and suspension
Genioglossal advancement
Partial midline glossectomy
Tongue suspension suture
However, these reports are level 4 data, with case reports and case series often re-
ported on children undergoing multiple procedures or with mixed cohorts of patients
with limited polysomnographic data.65–70
Consideration of bariatric surgery for obese adolescents is also becoming common,
and in 2011, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery published
a best practice guideline that states that a “mounting body of evidence supports
the use of modern surgical weight loss procedures for carefully selected, extremely
obese adolescents.”71 Criteria for consideration included adolescents with:
BMI >35 kg/m2 with major comorbidities including type 2 diabetes, moderate-to-
severe OSA (AHI15), pseudotumor cerebri, or severe nonalcoholic steato-
hepatitis
BMI 40 kg/m2 with comorbidities including hypertension, insulin resistance,
glucose intolerance, substantially impaired quality of life or activities of daily
living, dyslipidemia, and OSA with AHI of at least 5
A 2011 prospective randomized trial of 50 children ages 14 to 18 years with

a BMI >35 kg/m2 compared a medically supervised lifestyle to gastric banding with
2 years of follow-up.72 Eighty-four percent of those with gastric banding and 12%
of those with lifestyle changes lost more than 50% of the excess weight, with mean
weight loss of 79% in the banding group and 13% in the lifestyle group. In addition,
metabolic syndrome had resolved in all of those with gastric banding and 78% of
those with lifestyle changes. Sleep was not directly measured in this study. A separate
study of 10 children with OSA who underwent nocturnal polysomnography before and
after bariatric surgery found a significant improvement in AHI.73 BMI decreased from
a mean of 60.8 (standard deviation [SD] 11.07) to 41.6 (SD 9.5), while the AHI
decreased from 9.1 to 0.65 events per hour. Additional research is needed to deter-
mine the effect of bariatric surgery on sleep and sleep apnea in children.
Medical Treatment for Pediatric Sleep Apnea

While there are limited data regarding the efficacy of weight loss on OSA in children,
weight loss has been shown to improve OSA disease severity in adults. In a meta-
analysis of 342 adults, mean BMI was decreased by 17.9 kg/m2 from a mean starting
value of 55.3 kg/m2, while the AHI decreased from 54.7 events per hour to 15.8 events
per hour.74 This represents a significant reduction in OSA disease severity, but still left
a number of patients with moderate-to-severe OSA. An evaluation of a program that
combines behavioral procedures with nutrition, exercise, and dietary education was per-
formed in 61 children with 10 years follow-up.75 They found that 34% of children had at
least a 20% weight loss, and that 30% were no longer obese at 10 years in those with
both parents and children involved in the education and counseling. This supports current
recommendations that the most effective programs for pediatric weight loss are school-
based programs that include behavioral counseling, dietary counseling, nutrition educa-
tion, scheduled physical activity, and parental training and involvement.
Limited studies of medical therapy have looked at short courses of oral and nasal
steroids. The single published trial of oral steroids for 5 days at 1mg/kg was not found
to have any significant effect on SDB.76 However, 3 studies have shown modest
improvements in mild OSA with 26 weeks of nasal steroid therapy and improvement in
the AHI ranging from 2 to 4 events per hour.77–79
In addition, studies of leukotrienes have been found in increased concentration in
the tonsils and upper airway of children with OSA.80 In light of this, a 16-week trial
of monteleukast therapy was performed for 24 children with mild OSA and found
a modest change in AHI from 3 to 2 events per hour.81 A second trial of monteleukast
in combination with nasal steroid therapy for 12 weeks found an improvement in AHI
from 3.9 to 0.3 events per hour, with no changes seen in a control group.82 These
studies suggest that mild OSA, either after adenotonsillectomy or in lieu of adenoton-
sillectomy, may be reasonably treated with combined medial therapy. However, long-
term results are not available, and it is not known if this improvement in AHI is durable
or if it requires long-term medical therapy.
Oral Appliance Therapy/Rapid Maxillary Expansion

Adult studies of oral appliance therapy have found that they are most useful for non-
obese patients with some degree of micrognathia or retrognathia. In addition, they are
most often used in adults with mild-to-moderate OSA; however, there are few studies
of oral appliances in children. One from 2004 looked at 20 children with mild-to-
moderate OSA and found modest improvements in RDI from 7.9 to 3.7 events an
hour after 6 months of use.83
Rapid maxillary expansion (RME) is intended to increase the width of the hard palate
by opening up the midline palatal suture, and it is suggested for use only in children
with maxillary constriction. It is used for 3 to 4 months duration and then left in place
for a period of consolidation, usually 2 to 3 additional months, before removal (Fig. 1).
A study of 31 nonobese children with maxillary constriction, no adenoidal hypertrophy,
and OSA found an improvement of AHI from 12.2 to less than 1 event per hour in all 31
children.84 Another study of 14 children found an improvement of AHI from 5.8 to 1.5
events per hour with a parallel reduction in snoring, sleepiness, tiredness, and oral
breathing.85 In this study, researchers screened 260 children presenting to an ortho-
dontic clinic and found 35 eligible patients. Improvement in mean palatal expansion
was 3.7 plus or minus 0.7 mm for the intercanine area and 5.0 plus or minus 2.2
mm for the inter-premolar measurement. A follow-up study by the same group on
Fig. 1. Photograph of the tooth-borne distractor (Hyrax) in situ on the anatomic specimen.
(From Koudstaal MJ, Smeets JB, Kleinrensink GJ, et al. Relapse and stability of surgically as-
sisted rapid maxillary expansion: an anatomic biomechanical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2009;67:10–4; with permission.)
1064 Ishman
10 of the 14 children with sleep studies at 12 and 24 months found no significant

decrement in AHI or clinical symptoms.86
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

A multicenter study of 29 children with a mean age of 10.5 years using continuous posi-
tive airway pressure (CPAP) or bi-level pressure (BiPAP) found that it improved AHI,
sleepiness, and snoring during the 6 months of the study.87 However, 8 of 29 children
(28%) dropped out before the end of the study, and for those remaining in the trial, posi-
tive airway pressure (PAP) use was significantly overestimated by parents by a mean of
1.8 hours. Actual nightly use by compliance monitoring was 5.3 plus or minus 2.5 hours
per night. Additional studies of CPAP in children have reported similar levels of adher-
ence at 70%, such as a retrospective review of 46 children with OSA, with a mean age of
13.6 years.88 However, compliance readings were only available in 27 children (59%),
and only 19 were using CPAP at least 4 hours a night for at least 5 days a week. If it is
assumed that only 19 of 46 children were using CPAP adequately at the end of the study
period, the final adherence rate may have been as low as 41%. In addition, these
studies are in older children and do not address CPAP use in younger patients.
A single retrospective study of facial side effects of PAP therapy was performed in
40 children from 2002 and 2003 with a median duration of PAP use of 15 months and
median age of 10 years. The authors found a significant rate of skin injury (48%)
including erythema and skin necrosis, global facial flattening (68%), and maxillary ret-
rusion (37%).89 However, this was not a longitudinal evaluation of bony facial changes,
and the skeletal findings may be a greater reflection of the underlying pathology
requiring PAP than the effect of the PAP mask itself.
BOTTOM LINE: WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE TELL?
History and physical examination are not sufficient to differentiate between

snoring and obstructive sleep apnea (evidence grade B).
Nocturnal in-laboratory polysomnography remains the gold standard for diag-
nosis of OSA (evidence grade A).
Adenotonsillectomy is the recommended initial treatment for OSA and SDB for
healthy children, even in those with risk factors associated with persistent pedi-
atric OSA such as obesity (evidence grade B).
Efficacy data for partial tonsillectomy are limited despite multiple studies
showing reduced postoperative bleeding and recovery time (evidence grade C).
Bariatric surgery is an option for extremely obese adolescents (evidence grade C).
Medical treatment may be a good option for mild OSA, either primary or persistent
after adenotonsillectomy, although more data are necessary (evidence grade C).
CPAP is an effective therapy in children, but similar to adults, adherence is
a significant issue. Additionally, there may be facial side effects in children with
long-term use (evidence grade C).
REFERENCES
1. Guilleminault C, Eldridge FL, Simmons FB, et al. Sleep apnea in eight children.
Pediatrics 1976;58:23–30.
2. Bixler EO, Vgontzas AN, Lin HM, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing in children in
a general population sample: prevalence and risk factors. Sleep 2009;32:731–6.
3. Li AM, So HK, Au CT, et al. Epidemiology of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome
in Chinese children: a two-phase community study. Thorax 2010;65:991–7.
4. O’Brien LM, Holbrook CR, Mervis CB, et al. Sleep and neurobehavioral character-
istics of 5- to 7-year-old children with parentally reported symptoms of attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics 2003;111(3):554–63.
5. Young T, Evans L, Finn L, et al. Estimation of the clinically diagnosed proportion of
sleep apnea syndrome in middle-aged men and women. Sleep 1997;20(9):705–6.
6. Roland PS, Rosenfeld RM, Brooks LJ, et al. Clinical practice guideline: polysom-
nography for sleep-disordered breathing prior to tonsillectomy in children. Otolar-
yngol Head Neck Surg 2011;145(Suppl 1):s1–15.
7. Lumeng JC, Chervin RD. Epidemiology of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea.
Proc Am Thorac Soc 2008;5(2):242–52.
8. Sogut A, Altin R, Uzun L, et al. Prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome
and associated symptoms in 3–11-year-old Turkish children. Pediatr Pulmonol
2005;39:251–6.
9. Wing YK, Hui SH, Pak WM, et al. A controlled study of sleep related disordered
breathing in obese children. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:1043–7.
10. Sánchez-Armengol A, Fuentes-Pradera MA, Capote-Gil F, et al. Sleep-related
breathing disorders in adolescents aged 12 to 16 years: clinical and polygraphic
findings. Chest 2001;119(5):1393–400.
11. Rosen CL, Larkin EK, Kirchner HL, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for sleep-
disordered breathing in 8- to 11-year-old children: association with race and
prematurity. J Pediatr 2003;142(4):383–9.
12. Gozal D. Sleep, sleep disorders and inflammation in children. Sleep Med 2009;
10(Suppl 1):S12–6.
13. O’Brien LM, Mervis CB, Holbrook CR, et al. Neurobehavioral implications of
habitual snoring in children. Pediatrics 2004;114(1):44–9.
14. Surratt PM, Barth JT, Diamond R, et al. Reduced time in bed and obstructive
sleep-disordered breathing in children are associated with cognitive impairment.
Pediatrics 2007;119(2):320–9.
15. Chervin RD, Ruzicka DL, Giordani BJ, et al. Sleep-disordered breathing,
behavior, and cognition in children before and after adenotonsillectomy. Pediat-
rics 2006;117(4):e769–78.
16. Kalra M, Kimball TR, Daniels SR, et al. Structural cardiac changes as a predictor
of respiratory complications after adenotonsillectomy for obstructive breathing
during sleep in children. Sleep Med 2005;6(3):241–5.
17. Li AM, Au CT, Sung RY, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure in children with obstruc-
tive sleep apnoea: a community based study. Thorax 2008;63(9):803–9.
18. Bonuck KA, Freeman K, Henderson J. Growth and growth biomarker changes
after adenotonsillectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child
2009;94(2):83–91.
19. Chaicharn J, Lin Z, Chen ML, et al. Model-based assessment of cardiovascular
autonomic control in children with obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep 2009;32:
927–38.
20. Aljadeff G, Gozal D, Schechtman VL, et al. Heart rate variability in children with
obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep 1997;20:151–7.
21. Gozal D. Sleep-disordered breathing and school performance in children. Pedi-
atrics 1998;102(3 Pt 1):616–20.
22. Katz ES, D’Ambrosio CM. Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Clin Chest Med
2010;31:221–34.
23. American Academy of Pediatrics. Clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and
management of childhood obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Pediatrics 2002;
109(4):704–12.
1066 Ishman
24. Goodwin JL, Kaemingk KL, Mulvaney SA, et al. Clinical screening of school chil-
dren for polysomnography to detect sleep-disordered breathing—the Tucson
Children’s Assessment of Sleep Apnea study (TuCASA). J Clin Sleep Med
2005;1(3):247–54.
25. Carroll JL, McColley SA, Marcus CL, et al. Inability of clinical history to distinguish
primary snoring from obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in children. Chest 1995;
108(3):610–8.
26. Carotenuto M, Bruni O, Santoro N, et al. Waist circumference predicts the occur-
rence of sleep-disordered breathing in obese children and adolescents: a ques-
tionnaire-based study. Sleep Med 2006;7(4):357–61.
27. Chervin RD, Weatherly RA, Garetz SL, et al. Pediatric sleep questionnaire:
prediction of sleep apnea and outcomes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2007;133(3):216–22.
28. Constantin E, Tewfik TL, Brouillette RT. Can the OSA-18 quality-of-life question-
naire detect obstructive sleep apnea? Pediatrics 2010;125(1):e162–8.
29. Aurora RN, Zak RS, Karippot A, et al, American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
Practice parameters for the respiratory indications for polysomnography in chil-
dren. Sleep 2011;34(3):379–88.
30. Goodwin JL, Enright PL, Kaeming KL, et al. Feasibility of using unattended poly-
somnography in children for research–report of the Tucson Children’s Assess-
ment of Sleep Apnea study (TuCASA). Sleep 2001;24(8):937–44.
31. Katz ES, Greene MG, Carson KA, et al. Night-to-night variability of polysomnog-
raphy in children with suspected obstructive sleep apnea. J Pediatr 2002;140(5):
589–94.
32. Li AM, Wing YK, Cheung A, et al. Is a 2-night polysomnographic study necessary in
childhood sleep-related -disordered breathing? Chest 2004;126(5):1467–72.
33. Scholle S, Scholle HC, Kemper A, et al. First night effect in children and adoles-
cents undergoing polysomnography for sleep-disordered breathing. Clin Neuro-
physiol 2003;114(11):2138–45.
34. Verhulst SL, Schrauwen N, De Backer WA, et al. First night effect for polysomno-
graphic data in children and adolescents with suspected sleep disordered
breathing. Arch Dis Child 2006;91(3):233–7.
35. Rebuffat E, Groswasser J, Kelmanson I, et al. Polygraphic evaluation of night-to-
night variability in sleep characteristics and apneas in infants. Sleep 1994;17(4):
329–32.
36. Nieminen P, Tolonen U, Lopponen H. Snoring and obstructive sleep apnea in chil-
dren: a 6-month follow-up study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126(4):
481–6.
37. Zucconi M, Calori G, Castonovo V, et al. Respiratory monitoring by means of an
unattended device in children with suspected uncomplicated obstructive sleep
apnea: a validation study. Chest 2003;124(2):602–7.
38. Mason DG, Iyer K, Terrill PI, et al. Pediatric obstructive sleep apnea assessment
using pulse oximetry and dual RIP bands. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc
2010;2010:6154–7.
39. Marcus CL, Keens TG, Ward SL. Comparison of nap and overnight polysomnog-
raphy in children. Pediatr Pulmonol 1992;13(1):16–21.
40. Saeed MM, Keens TG, Stabile MW, et al. Should children with suspected obstruc-
tive sleep apnea syndrome and normal nap sleep studies have overnight sleep
studies? Chest 2000;118(2):360–5.
41. Marcus CL, Keens TG, Bautista DB, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea in children
with Down syndrome. Pediatrics 1991;88:132–9.
42. Noehren A, Brockmann PE, Urschitz MS, et al. Detection of respiratory events
using pulse rate in children with and without obstructive sleep apnea. Pediatr Pul-
monol 2010;45(5):459–68.
43. Katz ES, Lutz J, Black C, et al. Pulse transit time as a measure of arousal and
respiratory effort in children with sleep-disordered breathing. Pediatr Res 2003;
53(4):580–8.
44. Foo JY, Bradley AP, Wilson SJ, et al. Screening of obstructive and central apnoea/
hypopnoea in children using variability: a preliminary study. Acta Paediatr 2006;
95(5):561–4.
45. Tauman R, O’Brien LM, Mast BT, et al. Peripheral arterial tonometry events and
electroencephalographic arousals in children. Sleep 2004;27(3):502–6.
46. Brouillette RT, Morielli A, Leimanis A, et al. Nocturnal pulse oximetry as an abbre-
viated testing modality for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Pediatrics 2000;
105(2):405–12.
47. Nixon GM, Kermack AS, Davis GM, et al. Planning adenotonsillectomy in children
with obstructive sleep apnea: the role of overnight oximetry. Pediatrics 2004;
113(1 Pt 1):e19–25.
48. Kirk VG, Bohn SG, Flemons WW, et al. Comparison of home oximetry monitoring
with laboratory polysomnography in children. Chest 2003;124(5):1702–8.
49. Baugh RF, Archer SM, Mitchell RB, et al. Clinical practice guideline: tonsillectomy
in children. American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foun-
dation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;144(Suppl 1):S1–30.
50. Friedman M, Wilson M, Lin HC, et al. Updated systematic review of tonsillectomy
and adenoidectomy for treatment of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea
syndrome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140(6):800–8.
51. Costa DJ, Mitchell R. Adenotonsillectomy for obstructive sleep apnea in obese
children: a meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140:455–60.
52. Windfuhr JP, Chen YS, Remmert S. Hemorrhage following tonsillectomy and ad-
enoidectomy in 15,218 patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132:281–6.
53. Pratt LW, Gallagher RA. Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy: incidence and
mortality, 1968–1972. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1979;87(2):159–66.
54. Stevenson AN, Myer CM 3rd, Shuler MD, et al. Complications and legal outcomes
of tonsillectomy malpractice claims. Laryngoscope 2012;122(1):71–4 [Epub 2011
Nov 10].
55. Tunkel DE, Hotchkiss KS, Carson KA, et al. Efficacy of powered intracapsular
tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Laryngoscope 2008;118(7):1295–302.
56. Mangiardi J, Graw-Panzer KD, Weedon J, et al. Polysomnography outcomes for
partial intracapsular versus total tonsillectomy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
2010;74(12):1361–6.
57. Sarny S, Ossimitz G, Habermann W, et al. Hemorrhage following tonsil surgery:
a multicenter prospective study. Laryngoscope 2011;121(12):2553–60.
58. Derkay CS, Darrow DH, Welch C, et al. Post-tonsillectomy morbidity and quality of
life in pediatric patients with obstructive tonsils and adenoid: microdebrider vs
electrocautery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;134(1):114–20.
59. Koltai PJ, Solares CA, Koempel JA, et al. Intracapsular tonsillar reduction (partial
tonsillectomy): reviving a historical procedure for obstructive sleep disordered
breathing in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129(5):532–8.
60. Celenk F, Bayazit YA, Yilmaz M, et al. Tonsillar regrowth following partial tonsillec-
tomy with radiofrequency. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008;72(1):19–22.
61. Zagolski O. Why do palatine tonsils grow back after partial tonsillectomy in chil-
dren? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267(10):1613–7.
1068 Ishman
62. Solares CA, Koempel JA, Hirose K, et al. Safety and efficacy of powered intracap-
sular tonsillectomy in children: a multi-center retrospective case series. Int J
Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2005;69(1):21–6.
63. Joshua B, Bahar G, Sulkes J, et al. Adenoidectomy: long-term follow up. Otolar-
yngol Head Neck Surg 2006;135(4):576–80.
64. Brietzke SE, Gallagher D. The effectiveness of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy
in the treatment of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome:
a meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;134(6):979–84.
65. Kerschner JE, Lynch JB, Kleiner H, et al. Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty with tonsil-
lectomy and adenoidectomy as a treatment for obstructive sleep apnea in neuro-
logically impaired children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2002;62(3):229–35.
66. Kosko JR, Derkay CS. Uvuloplatopharyngoplasty: treatment of obstructive sleep
apnea in neurologically impaired pediatric patients. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
1995;32(3):241–6.
67. Morita T, Kurata K, Hiratsuka Y, et al. A preoperative sleep study with nasal airway
occlusion in pharyngeal flap surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 2004;25(5):334–8.
68. Sullivan S, Li K, Guilleminault C. Nasal obstruction in children with sleep-
disordered breathing. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2008;37(8):645–8.
69. Miller FR, Watson D, Boseley M. The role of genial bone advancement trephine
system in conjunction with uvulopalatopharyngoplasty in the multilevel man-
agement of obstructive sleep apnea. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;
130(1):73–9.
70. Wootten CT, Shott SR. Evolving therapies to treat retroglossal and base-of-tongue
obstruction in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2010;136(10):983–7.
71. Michalsky M, Reichard K, Inge T, et al. ASMBS pediatric committee best practive
guidelines. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2012;8(1):1–7 [Epub 2011 Sep 23].
72. O’Brien PE, Sawyer SM, Brown LC, et al. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric
banding in severely obese adolescents: a randomized trial. JAMA 2010;303:
512–26.
73. Kalra M, Inge T, Garcia V. Obstructive sleep apnea in extremely overweight
adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery. Obese Res 2005;13(7):1175–9.
74. Greenburg DL, Lettieri CJ, Eliasson AH. Effects of surgical weight loss on measures
of obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 2009;122(6):535–42.
75. Epstein LH, Valoski A, Wing RR, et al. Ten-year follow-up of behavioral, family-
based treatment for obese children. JAMA 1990;264(19):2519–23.
76. Al-Ghamdi SA, Manoukian JJ, Morielli A, et al. Do systemic corticosteroids effec-
tively treat obstructive sleep apnea secondary to adenotonsillar hypertrophy?
Laryngoscope 1997;107(10):1382–7.
77. Brouillette RT, Manoukian JJ, Ducharme FM, et al. Efficacy of fluticasone nasal
spray for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. J Pediatr 2001;138:838–44.
78. Kheirandish-Gozal L, Gozal D. Intranasal budesonide treatment for children with
mild obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Pediatrics 2008;122:e149–55.
79. Alexopoulos EI, Kaditis AG, Kalampouka E, et al. Nasal corticosteroids for chil-
dren with snoring. Pediatr Pulmonol 2004;38:161–7.
80. Kaditis AG, Ioannou MG, Chaidas K, et al. Cysteinyl leukotriene receptors are
expressed by tonsillar T cells of children with obstructive sleep apnea. Chest
2008;134:324–31.
81. Goldbart AD, Goldman JL, Veling MC, et al. Leukotriene modifier therapy for mild
sleep–disordered breathing in children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005;172:
364–70.
82. Kheirandish L, Goldbart AD, Gozal D. Intranasal steroids and oral leukotriene
modifier therapy in residual sleep-disordered breathing after tonsillectomy and
adenoidectomy in children. Pediatrics 2006;117:e61–6.
83. Cozza P, Polimeni A, Ballanti F. A modified monobloc for the treatment of obstruc-
tive sleep apnoea in paediatric patients. Eur J Orthod 2004;26(5):523–30.
84. Pirelli P, Saponara M, Guilleminault C. Rapid maxillary expansion in children with
obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Sleep 2004;27(4):761–6.
85. Villa MP, Malagola C, Pagani J, et al. Rapid maxillary expansion in children with
obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: 12-month follow-up. Sleep Med 2007;8:
128–34.
86. Villa MP, Rizzoli A, Miano S, et al. Efficacy of rapid maxillary expansion in children
with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: 36 months of follow-up. Sleep Breath
2011;15(2):179–84.
87. Marcus CL, Rosen G, Ward SL, et al. Adherence to and effectiveness of positive
airway pressure therapy in children with obstructive sleep apnea. Pediatrics
2006;117:e442–51.
88. Uong EC, Epperson M, Bathon SA, et al. Adherence to nasal positive airway pres-
sure therapy among school-aged children and adolescents with obstructive
sleep apnea syndrome. Pediatrics 2007;120(5):e1203–11.
89. Fauroux B, Lavis JF, Nicot F, et al. Facial side effects during noninvasive positive
pressure ventilation in children. Intensive Care Med 2005;31(7):965–9.
Pediatric Tonsillectomy
Karin P.Q. Oomen, MD, PhDa, Vikash K. Modi, MD

a,
*,
Michael G. Stewart, MD, MPHb
KEYWORDS
Tonsillectomy Children Throat infections Sleep-disordered breathing
Evidence-based medicine
KEY POINTS
The following points are expanded at the conclusion of this article and additional critical
points are presented.
Gaps in knowledge about perioperative management for tonsillectomy in children remain.
Outcome measures in sleep-disordered breathing and recurrent throat infections should
focus on not only recurrence of disease but also quality of life and school performance as
indicators of well-being.
No consensus exists on indications for a preoperative polysomnogram in children without
comorbidities. Currently, physicians are recommended to advocate for polysomnogram in
patients with sleep-disordered breathing without comorbidities if the need for surgery is
uncertain or in the presence of discordance between symptoms and physical
examination.
Reported success rates of tonsillectomy for sleep-disordered breathing in obese children
are 10% to 20%; in normal-weight children they are 70% to 80%.
Current guidelines do not recommend specific tonsillectomy techniques.
The development of intracapsular tonsillectomy represents a different surgical strategy
rather than a different instrumental technique that, with further study, could lead to new
recommendations.
OVERVIEW
Tonsillectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in children in

the United States, with more than 530, 000 procedures performed annually.1 Tonsillec-
tomy is defined as a surgical procedure that removes the tonsil. Removal of the tonsil
may be specified as complete, through dissecting the peritonsillar space between the
The authors have nothing to declare.

a
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Pediatric Otolaryngology-Head & Neck
Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, 428 East 72nd Street, Suite 100, New York, NY 10021,
USA; b Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College,
1305 York Avenue, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10021, USA
E-mail address: Vkm2001@med.cornell.edu

1072 Oomen et al
tonsil capsule and the muscular wall, or partial, through removing a varying amount of
tonsillar tissue intracapsularly or subcapsularly.2 Although tonsillectomy is a common
procedure, it is associated with morbidity, including anesthesia risks, throat pain, and
postoperative bleeding, which may result in admission for observation or further
surgery to control bleeding. These and rarer complications have been well described
and should be taken into account when considering surgery in children.3
This article provides an evidence-based perspective on perioperative clinical deci-
sion making and surgical technique for tonsillectomy.

Indications for Tonsillectomy
Indications for tonsillectomy are multiple, the most common and generally accepted of
which are sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and recurrent throat infections, with
a gradual incidence shift toward SDB over the past 2 decades.4
SDB is now the single most common indication for tonsillectomy with or without
adenoidectomy; SDB constitutes a range of disorders increasing in severity from snoring
and restless sleep to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).5 SDB has a multifactorial etiology,
and hypertrophic tonsils are usually a contributing factor. A recent meta-analysis has
shown that tonsillectomy is effective for treating SDB in children with tonsillar hyper-
trophy,6 and a recent clinical practice guideline recommends tonsillectomy in children
with tonsil hypertrophy who have a polysomnography indicative of SDB.2 Success rates
are significantly lower for tonsillectomy in obese children with SDB.7
Throat infections are defined as episodes of sore throat caused by viral or bacterial
infection of the pharynx, palatine tonsils, or both, and include a variety of terms, such
as tonsillitis, pharyngitis, and strep throat.2 Throat infections may be documented for
each episode of sore throat with one or more of the following: temperature higher than
38.3 C, cervical adenopathy, tonsillar exudates, or positive test for group A b-hemo-
lytic streptococci.
The actual benefit of tonsillectomy compared with observation in children with throat
infections remains a subject of controversy. In 1984, a randomized controlled trial by
Paradise and colleagues8 showed a reduction in frequency and severity of infections
in severely affected children with recurrent throat infections in the 2 years after tonsillec-
tomy. In moderately affected children, the same group found only a modest benefit of
tonsillectomy, which the authors believed was not sufficient to outweigh the risks,
morbidity, and costs of surgery.9 A recent clinical practice guideline recommended
tonsillectomy in children with recurrent throat infections with a frequency of at least
seven episodes in the prior year, at least five episodes per year in the prior 2 years, or
at least three episodes per year in the prior 3 years.2,8 Although the guideline recommen-
ded watchful waiting for recurrent throat infections with a lesser frequency, tonsillectomy
is recommend in children with fewer throat infections if they exhibit modifying factors,
such as multiple antibiotic allergy or intolerance, a combination of periodic fever, aph-
thous stomatitis, pharyngitis, and adenitis (PFAPA), or a history of peritonsillar abscess.2
Other rarer indications for surgery include orthodontic concerns, tonsiliths, halitosis,
and chronic tonsillitis, all for which substantial evidence is currently not available or of
lesser quality.10–12
Clinical Assessment of Tonsils

Careful history taking is vital and should include symptoms of
Throat infections
Snoring
Evidence-Based Practice 1073
Apneas
Restless sleep
Nocturnal enuresis
Somnolence
Growth retardation
Poor school performance
Behavioral problems
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Physical examination should focus on the anatomy, which includes the size of the
tonsils in relation to the position and size of the palate, tongue, and chin. Tonsil size
is currently identified using a tonsil grading scale,13,14 with tonsillar hypertrophy
defined as 31 or 41. An important limitation of this grading system is that it does
not provide a three-dimensional assessment of tonsil size, which would be more
accurate in quantifying tonsillar hypertrophy. A previous study has shown that
tonsillar size alone does not correlate with the severity of SDB,10 but the
combined volume of the tonsils and the adenoids do correlate more closely with
SDB severity.15
Polysomnography
Unfortunately, neither history nor physical examination alone can reliably predict the
presence or severity of SDB.16 Currently, polysomnography is the gold standard for
diagnosing and quantifying SDB in children, and can be a useful diagnostic tool before
tonsillectomy.17 Polysomnography is the electrical recording of physiologic variables
during sleep, including gas exchange, respiratory effort, airflow, snoring, sleep stage,
body position, limb movement, and heart rhythm. Not only does polysomnography
identify the presence of SDB, it also helps define its severity and may serve as an
aid in perioperative planning and assessing the risk of postoperative complications.
Since 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended overnight pol-
ysomnography in all children with suspected SDB to confirm diagnosis.17 A recent
clinical practice guideline on polysomnography in children recommended referral for
polysomnography in children with SDB before tonsillectomy if they exhibited one of
the following comorbid conditions5:
Obesity
Down syndrome
Craniofacial abnormalities
Neuromuscular disorders
Sickle cell disease
Mucopolysaccharidosis
In these children, polysomnography helps determine the need for postoperative
pulse oximetry and admission. The same guideline recommends polysomnography
before tonsillectomy in children without any of the aforementioned comorbidities,
but only if the need for surgery is uncertain or in the presence of discordance between
the clinical history and/or tonsillar size on physical examination and the reported
severity of SDB.
Polysomnography may be performed in a sleep laboratory or in an ambulatory
setting, the latter being referred to as portable monitoring (PM). Because of the cost
and inconvenience of laboratory-based polysomnography, several forms of PM
have developed, but few devices have been tested in children, and substantial
evidence for this method is lacking. Laboratory-based polysomnography is currently
1074 Oomen et al
the gold standard for evaluation of SDB in children and is recommended in children for
whom polysomnography is indicated to assess SDB before tonsillectomy.5
EVIDENCE-BASED SURGICAL TECHNIQUE FOR TONSILLECTOMY

Procedure
Total tonsillectomy via cold dissection
Traditional techniques for tonsillectomy consist of cold dissection with metal instru-
ments including knife, scissor, or snare. These techniques involve complete removal
of the tonsil with its capsule by dissecting the peritonsillar space, with hemostasis ob-
tained through ligation of blood vessels during tonsil removal or cauterization of the
wound bed. Complete dissection or total tonsillectomy (TT) with cold steel is still the
technique against which effectiveness and safety of other techniques are compared.2
Total tonsillectomy via electrosurgery, cautery dissection, coblation, radiofrequency
In recent years, many new surgical approaches for TT have been explored to reduce
perioperative morbidity. Electrosurgical or cautery dissection are common techniques
used for complete tonsillectomy. Many newer techniques, including radiofrequency,
coblation, harmonic scalpel, and PEAK PlasmaBlade, have been introduced to reduce
postoperative pain and hemorrhage.
Outcomes of total tonsillectomy techniques
A recent systematic review has studied randomized controlled trials comparing TT
performed using vessel sealing systems, harmonic scalpel, or coblation technique
with conventional techniques of cold steel and/or cautery dissection.18 No significant
differences in postoperative pain were found in the coblation and/or harmonic scalpel
method compared with the cold steel and/or cautery technique. Furthermore, several
randomized controlled trials have compared traditional TT with other techniques,
including coblation, cautery, and ultrasonic scalpel, without finding a significant differ-
ence in postoperative pain.19–22
Intracapsular tonsillectomy
A growing body of evidence suggests lower postoperative morbidity with a partial
intracapsular tonsillectomy (IT) technique, in which most tonsillar tissue is removed,
leaving a small amount of tonsillar tissue in the tonsillar fossa.23–25 The belief is that
the rim of tonsillar tissue left in the tonsillar fossa provides a buffer zone that prevents
damage to the surrounding pharyngeal muscles, thereby reducing severity and dura-
tion of postoperative pain.23,25 IT is also thought to reduce the amount of postopera-
tive hemorrhage.26 Several instruments have been used to perform IT, including the
microdebrider, the coblator, and traditional cold steel. A study by Bitar and
colleagues25 compared the effects of microdebrider-assisted IT to electrocautery-
assisted TT in children, showing no difference in surgical time or postoperative
bleeding, but an earlier return to normal activity and reduced need for analgesics in
the IT group. A study by Wilson and colleagues23 compared microdebrider-assisted
IT, coblator-assisted IT, and electrocautery-assisted TT and showed a significantly
earlier return to normal diet and preoperative activity level, and reduction of days of
pain in both IT groups. No significant differences were seen in occurrence of postop-
erative complications, such as hemorrhage. Chang27 showed a significantly shorter
postoperative recovery period for coblator-assisted IT compared with electrocau-
tery-assisted TT in children.
A potential concern with IT might be regrowth of tonsillar tissue and need for revision
surgery. Derkay and colleagues26 showed a significantly higher incidence of residual
tonsillar tissue in children who underwent microdebrider-assisted IT compared with
those who had electrocautery-assisted TT. However, the incidence of recurrence of

obstruction or infection in this group was unknown. Chan and colleagues28 also
showed a significantly higher incidence of residual tonsillar tissue, but no difference
in recurrence of obstructive disease, pharyngitis, or antibiotic use. Ericsson and
colleagues24 and Bitar and colleagues25 did not shown tonsillar regrowth at 12 and
20 months after IT, and no recurrence of symptoms after 3 years and 20 months,
respectively. Irrespective of tonsillar regrowth, a retrospective chart review by
Schmidt and colleagues29 compared the efficacy of IT versus TT in treating recurrent
tonsillitis and showed no difference in postoperative infection rates.
Postoperative Management of Tonsillectomy: Hospitalization

Several studies have established that pediatric tonsillectomy may be safely performed
in an outpatient setting.28,30,31 A previous clinical guideline recommends that children
with complicated medical histories, including cardiac complications of OSA, neuro-
muscular disorders, prematurity, obesity, failure to thrive, craniofacial anomalies, or
a recent upper respiratory tract infection, should be admitted overnight because of
a higher risk of postoperative respiratory complications.17 SDB severity has also
been identified as a risk factor for postoperative respiratory complications and is there-
fore considered an indication for postoperative admission by many. Although tonsillec-
tomy resolves or at least significantly improves OSA in most children, they may
continue to experience upper airway obstruction and oxygen desaturation in the direct
postoperative period.32,33 An apnea-hypopnea index of 10 or more obstructive events
per hour and/or oxygen saturation nadir less than 80% is currently considered the level
of severity required for postoperative hospitalization with monitoring.5,34 Admission
after total tonsillectomy is also recommended for children younger than 3 years, regard-
less of indication, because of postoperative pain resulting in poor oral intake.35–37 With
the advent of techniques such as IT, reduction of postoperative morbidity might lead to
new insights on postoperative management. Bent and colleagues38 compared children
younger than 3 years with children aged 3 years or older undergoing IT for postopera-
tive parameters such as pain, oral intake, or analgesic requirements. Because no signif-
icant differences were found between the age groups, the investigators concluded that
children younger than 3 years may undergo IT on an outpatient basis.
Postoperative Hemorrhage in Tonsillectomy

Postoperative hemorrhage is a well-known complication of tonsillectomy and may be
categorized as primary or secondary. Primary hemorrhage is defined as bleeding
within the first 24 hours after tonsillectomy, and occurs in 0.2% to 2.2% of patients.2
Secondary hemorrhage occurs more than 24 hours after surgery, often between 5 and
10 days, because of sloughing of the primary eschar during healing of the tonsil bed.
Rates of secondary hemorrhage for tonsillectomy range from 0.1% to 3%.39 Clinicians
who perform tonsillectomy are recommended to always inquire about bleeding after
surgery, and determine their rate of primary and secondary posttonsillectomy hemor-
rhage at least annually.2
Surgical technique can have an impact on postoperative bleeding. Several new tech-
niques were recently introduced to reduce postoperative hemorrhage. Many previous
studies have focused on comparison of “hot” (electrosurgery or electrocautery tech-
niques) versus cold tonsillectomy with respect to postoperative bleeding, with similar
unequivocal outcomes.18–22 Several systematic reviews18,40–43 have summarized
randomized controlled trials on conventional cold steel tonsillectomy versus diathermy,
monopolar cautery, coblation, or harmonic scalpel techniques, but none has shown
a significant difference in postoperative hemorrhage rates among techniques.
1076 Oomen et al
Other studies have focused on comparison of IT and TT with respect to postoper-

ative complications such as hemorrhage.23,25,26,28,44–50 Three large retrospective case
series have shown a significantly lower rate of postoperative bleeding for IT compared
with TT.44,47,49 However, most prospective trials fail to demonstrate a significant differ-
ence in postoperative hemorrhage between IT and TT,23,25,26,28,45,46 although one trial
reports a significantly lower intraoperative blood loss with IT.45
SDB and Other Postoperative Concerns in Tonsillectomy

With SDB being the most common indication for tonsillectomy, postoperative moni-
toring for possible residual SDB is an important consideration. Before surgery, care-
givers must be counseled that tonsillectomy is not curative in all cases of SDB in
children, especially in children with obesity, and further treatment may be required
after surgery.2 Clinical guidelines do not recommend routine polysomnography after
tonsillectomy in children with SDB. When SDB or related comorbid conditions, such
as growth retardation, poor school performance, enuresis, or behavioral problems,
have been the indication for surgery, SDB is considered cured when the caregiver
reports that symptoms are resolved postoperatively. In these cases, postoperative
polysomnography is deemed unnecessary, but substantial evidence for this
assumption is lacking. Any postoperative report of continuing symptoms of SDB
should be taken seriously and indicates the need for further evaluation, including
consideration of formal polysomnography.2 A recent systematic review does recom-
mend postoperative polysomnography for children with perioperative evi-
dence of moderate to severe OSA, obesity, craniofacial anomalies, and neurologic
disorders.50
WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES
Tonsillectomy is a safe surgical procedure performed on a large scale, most commonly

for SDB and recurrent throat infections. The positive effect of tonsillectomy has been
established for severely affected children with recurrent throat infections in a random-
ized controlled trial but could not be shown for children who were less severely affected
(grade B evidence).8,9 A systematic review of cohort studies and a few case series
found tonsillectomy to be an effective treatment for SDB (grade B–C evidence).6
Polysomnography is the gold standard for diagnosing SDB, but guidelines do not
recommend that polysomnography be performed routinely preoperatively in children
with suspected SDB and tonsil hypertrophy. Polysomnography is recommended in
children with specific comorbidities based on results from observational studies
(grade C evidence).5 In children without comorbidities but an uncertain need for
surgery or discordance between history and examination, preoperative polysomnog-
raphy should be performed (grade C evidence).5
In an attempt to reduce postoperative hemorrhage rates, several tonsillectomy
techniques have been developed, but systematic reviews of randomized controlled
trials have thus far not provided evidence of such a reduction using any particular
technique (grade A evidence).40,41 Many randomized controlled trials have compared
various newer and conventional TT techniques but could not demonstrate differences
in postoperative pain (grade B evidence).19–22
Studies comparing TT and IT show faster recovery and pain reduction in patients
treated with IT but no significantly lower risk of postoperative bleeding (grade B
evidence).23,25,26,28,45,46,48 Retrospective case series, however, do show a significantly
lower postoperative bleeding rate for IT (grade C evidence).44,47,49
Evidence grades and conclusions are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Conclusions and grades of evidence for tonsillectomy
Level of Evidence
Category References Description n Evidence Grade Conclusion
8
Effects of Parallel randomized and nonrandomized 187 1b B Tonsillectomy reduces throat infections
tonsillectomy clinical trials in severely affected children
8,9
Parallel randomized and nonrandomized 515 1b B Tonsillectomy does not reduce throat
clinical trials infections in less severely affected
children
6
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 1097 2a B–C Tonsillectomy is an effective treatment
randomized controlled trials and for sleep-disordered breathing
observational studies
5
Preoperative Clinical practice guideline–based 246 2b–3b C Polysomnography is recommended in
polysomnography observational studies children with specific comorbidities
5
Clinical practice guideline–based on 723 2b C Polysomnography is recommended in
observational studies children without specific comorbidities
if uncertain need for surgery or
discordance between history and
examination
40,41
Postoperative Systematic review of two randomized 254 1a A No differences in postoperative
hemorrhage controlled trials hemorrhage rates are seen between TT
techniques
Evidence-Based Practice
44,47,49
Retrospective case series with chart 5812 4 C IT might be associated with a lower risk
review of postoperative bleeding
19–22
Postoperative pain Prospective randomized controlled trials 362 1b B No differences in postoperative pain
rates are seen between TT techniques
23,25,26,28,45,46,48
Prospective randomized controlled trials 842 1b B IT is not associated with a lower rate of
postoperative pain
1077
1078 Oomen et al
CRITICAL POINTS
Although a large amount of literature is available and clinical guidelines exist,

certain gaps in knowledge remain about perioperative management for tonsillec-
tomy in children.
Large, multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trials are needed on
the effect of tonsillectomy on recurrent throat infections and SDB. Outcome
measures should focus on not only recurrence of disease but also quality of
life and school performance as indicators of well-being. Although a random-
ized controlled trial has shown reduction of throat infections after tonsillec-
tomy in severely affected children, this effect in not seen in milder cases or
for a postoperative period for more than 2 years.8,9 Because the effect of
tonsillectomy on throat infections was shown in a single study conducted in
1984, additional, newer, randomized, controlled trials may be needed to
confirm these findings.
Regarding SDB as an indication for surgery, certain topics must be addressed in
more detail. No consensus exists on indications for a preoperative polysomnog-
raphy in children without comorbidities. Currently, physicians are recommended
to advocate for polysomnography in patients with SDB without comorbidities if
the need for surgery is uncertain or in the presence of discordance between
symptoms and physical examination. Future studies on polysomnography for
SDB might be able to specify these rather wide criteria.
Because some children may lack access to a sleep laboratory or have difficulty
sleeping in a foreign environment, studies are need to evaluate PM. PM studies
should focus on which parameters should be measured to replicate laboratory
findings and accurately predict which children are at risk for postoperative
complications.
To the same extent, indications for postoperative polysomnography for SDB after
tonsillectomy must be specified and studied further.
With obesity rates increasing worldwide, a subject of growing concern is the
management of obese children with SDB. A previous meta-analysis of four
studies showed success rates of 10% to 20% for tonsillectomy for SDB in obese
children,7 whereas the resolution reported in normal-weight children is around
70% to 80%.51 This discrepancy warrants future investigation of the extent to
which obesity plays a role in failure to respond after tonsillectomy for SDB,
and determination of the exact role of tonsillectomy in obese children.
Currently, guidelines do not recommend specific tonsillectomy techniques.
Although a large body of literature discusses various TT techniques that differ
mainly in the instruments used, no substantial evidence exists for a general
benefit of one instrument over another. The development of IT, which repre-
sents a different surgical strategy rather than a different instrumental technique,
may be a field of further study that could eventually lead to new recommenda-
tions. Several studies have established benefits of IT over TT with respect to
postoperative recovery and pain.23,25,26,28,45,46,48 The finding of significantly
lower postoperative bleeding rates for IT in retrospective case series44,47,49
warrants further investigation and confirmation in prospective trials, but might
hold the promise of future recommendations for surgical technique. Specific
studies are needed on postoperative management after IT in patients in the
younger age group (age<3 years) to confirm previous findings.38 If positive,
these studies may influence recommendations on inpatient versus outpatient
surgery.
REFERENCES
1. Cullen KA, Hall MJ, Golosinsky A. Ambulatory surgery in the United States. Natl
Health Stat Rep 2009;11:1–28.
2. Baugh R, Archer S, Mitchell R, et al. Clinical practice guideline: tonsillectomy in
children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;144(Suppl):S1–30.
3. Johnson L, Elluru R, Myer C. Complications of adenotonsillectomy. Laryngoscope
2002;112:35–6.
4. Erickson B, Larson D, Stauver J. Changes in incidence and indications of tonsil-
lectomy and adenotonsillectomy, 1970-2005. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;
140(6):894–901.
5. Roland P, Rosenfeld R, Brooks L, et al. Clinical practice guideline: polysomnogra-
phy for sleep-disordered breathing prior to tonsillectomy in children. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2011;145(Suppl):S1–15.
6. Friedman M, Wilson M, Lin CH, et al. Updated systematic review of tonsillectomy
and adenoidectomy in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea
syndrome: a meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140(6):800–8.
7. Costa DJ, Mitchell R. Adenotonsillectomy for obstructive sleep apnea in obese
children: a meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140(4):455–60.
8. Paradise JL, Bluestone CD, Bachmann RZ, et al. Efficacy of tonsillectomy for
recurrent throat infection in severely affected children: results of parallel random-
ized and nonrandomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1984;310(11):674–83.
9. Paradise J, Bluestone CD, Colborn DK, et al. Tonsillectomy and adenotonsillec-
tomy for recurrent throat infection in moderately affected children. Pediatrics
2002;110(1):7–15.
10. Morawska A, Lyszczarz J, Skladzien J. An analysis of orthodontic indications for
surgical treatment of Waldeyer ring hyperplasia in pediatric patients of the otolar-
yngology and stomatology department of the university hospital of Krakow.
Otolaryngol Pol 2008;62(3):272–7.
11. Burton MJ, Glasziou PP. Tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy versus non-surgical
treatment for chronic/recurrent acute tonsillitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2009;(1):CD001802.
12. Tanyeri HT, Polat S. Temperature-controlled radiofrequency tonsil ablation for the
treatment of halitosis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268(2):267–72.
13. Brodsky L. Modern assessment of tonsils and adenoids. Pediatr Clin North Am
1989;36(6):1551–69.
14. Howard N, Brietzke S. Pediatric tonsil size: objective vs subjective measurements
correlated to overnight polysomnogram. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;
140(5):675–81.
15. Arens R, McDonough J, Corbin A, et al. Upper airway size analysis by magnetic
resonance imaging of children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Am J Respir
Crit Care Med 2003;167(1):65–70.
16. Brietzke SE, Katz ES, Robertson DW. Can history and physical examination reliably
diagnose pediatric obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome? A systematic
review of the literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131(6):827–32.
17. Subcommittee on Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome, American Academy
of Pediatrics. Clinical practice guideline: diagnosis and management of child-
hood obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Pediatrics 2002;109(4):704–12.
18. Vangelis AG, Salazar-Salvia MS, Jervis PN, et al. Modern technology-assisted vs
conventional tonsillectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;137(6):558–70.
1080 Oomen et al
19. Parsons SP, Cordes SR, Comer B. Comparison of posttonsillectomy pain using
the ultrasonic scalpel, coblator, and electrocautery. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2006;134(1):106–13.
20. Stoker KE, Don DM, Kang DR, et al. Pediatric total tonsillectomy using coblation
compared to conventional electrosurgery: a prospective, controlled single-blind
study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130(6):666–75.
21. Bäck L, Paloheimo M, Ylikoski J. Traditional tonsillectomy compared with bipolar
radiofrequency thermal ablation tonsillectomy in adults: a pilot study. Arch Otolar-
22. Philpott CM, Wild DC, Mehta D, et al. A double-blinded randomized controlled
trial of coblation versus conventional dissection tonsillectomy on postoperative
symptoms. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30(2):143–8.
23. Wilson YL, Merer DM, Moscatleoo AL. Comparison of three common tonsillec-
tomy techniques: a prospective randomized, double blinded clinical study.
Laryngoscope 2009;119(1):162–70.
24. Ericsson E, Graf J, Hultcrantz E. Pediatric tonsillotomy with radiofrequency tech-
nique: long term follow-up. Laryngoscope 2006;116(10):1851–7.
25. Bitar MA, Rameh C. Microdebrider-assisted partial tonsillectomy: short- and long-
term outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265(4):459–63.
26. Derkay CS, Darrow DH, Welch C, et al. Post-tonsillectomy morbidity and quality of
life in pediatric patients with obstructive tonsils and adenoid: microdebrider vs
electrocautery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;134(1):114–20.
27. Chang KW. Randomized controlled trial of coblation versus electrocautery tonsil-
lectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;132(2):273–80.
28. Chan KH, Friedman NR, Allen GC, et al. Randomized, controlled, multisite study
of intracapsular tonsillectomy using low-temperature plasma excision. Arch Oto-
laryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130(11):1303–7.
29. Schmidt R, Herzog A, Cook S, et al. Powered intracapsular tonsillectomy in the
management of recurrent tonsillitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137(2):
338–40.
30. Haberman RS, Shattuck TG, Dion NM. Is outpatient suction cautery tonsillectomy
safe in a community hospital setting? Laryngoscope 1990;100(5):511–5.
31. Helmus C, Grin M, Westfall R. Same-day-stay adenotonsillectomy. Laryngoscope
1990;100(6):593–6.
32. McColley SA, April MM, Carroll JL, et al. Respiratory compromise after adenoton-
sillectomy in children with obstructive sleep apnea. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 1992;118(9):940–3.
33. Nixon GM, Kermack AS, McGregor CD, et al. Sleep and breathing on the first
night after adenotonsillectomy for obstructive sleep apnea. Pediatr Pulmonol
2005;39(4):332–8.
34. Nixon GM, Kermack AS, Davis GM, et al. Planning adenotonsillectomy in children
with obstructive sleep apnea: the role of overnight oximetry. Pediatrics 2004;
113(1 Pt 1):e19–25.
35. Tom LW, DeDio RM, Cohen DE, et al. Is outpatient tonsillectomy appropriate for
young children? Laryngoscope 1992;102(3):277–80.
36. Rothschild MA, Catalano P, Biller HF. Ambulatory pediatric tonsillectomy and the
identification of high-risk subgroups. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;110(2):
203–10.
37. Mitchell RB, Pereira KD, Friedman NR, et al. Outpatient adenotonsillectomy: is it
safe in children younger than 3 years? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;
123(7):681–3.
38. Bent JP, April MM, Ward RF, et al. Ambulatory powered intracapsular tonsillec-
tomy and adenoidectomy in children younger than 3 years. Arch Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2004;130(10):1197–200.
39. Windfuhr JP, Chen YS, Remmert S. Hemorrhage following tonsillectomy and ad-
enoidectomy in 15,218 patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132(2):
281–6.
40. Pinder DK, Hilton MP. Dissection versus diathermy for tonsillectomy. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2001;(4):CD002211.
41. Burton MJ, Doree C. Coblation versus other surgical techniques for tonsillectomy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(3):CD004619.
42. Neumann C, Street I, Lowe D, et al. Harmonic scalpel tonsillectomy: a systematic
review of evidence for postoperative hemorrhage. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2007;137(3):378–84.
43. Leinbach RF, Markwell SJ, Colliver JA, et al. Hot versus cold tonsillectomy:
a systematic review of the literature. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129(4):
360–4.
44. Solares CA, Koempel JA, Hirose K, et al. Safety and efficacy of powered intracap-
sular tonsillectomy in children: a multi-center retrospective case series. In J Pediatr
Otolaryngol 2005;69(1):21–6.
45. Hultcrantz E, Ericsson E. Pediatric tonsillotomy with the radiofrequency tech-
nique: less morbidity and pain. Laryngoscope 2004;114(5):871–7.
46. Korkmaz O, Bekas D, Cobanoglu B, et al. Partial tonsillectomy in children with
obstructive tonsillar hypertrophy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008;72(7):
1007–12.
47. Gallagher TQ, Wilcox L, McGuire E, et al. Analyzing factors associated with major
complications after adenotonsillectomy in 4776 patients: comparing three tonsil-
lectomy techniques. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;142(6):886–92.
48. Chang KW. Intracapsular versus subcapsular coblation tonsillectomy. Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2008;138(2):153–7.
49. Schmidt R, Herzog A, Cook S, et al. Complications of tonsillectomy: a comparison
of techniques. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133(9):925–8.
50. Aurora RN, Zak RS, Karippot A, et al. Practice parameters for the respiratory indi-
cations for polysomnography in children. Sleep 2011;34(3):379–87.
51. Mitchell RB. Adenotonsillectomy for obstructive sleep apnea in children: outcome
evaluated by pre-and postoperative polysomnography. Laryngoscope 2007;
117(10):1844–54.
Evaluation and Management of Unilateral Vocal Fold
Paralysis
a, b
Stephanie Misono, MD, MPH *, Albert L. Merati, MD
KEYWORDS
Evidence-based otolaryngology Vocal cord paralysis Larynx Voice therapy
Unilateral vocal fold paralysis
KEY POINTS
Medicine.
Unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP) has a broad range of causes, including postsurgical,
idiopathic, and neoplasm-related (evidence grade C).
Work-up for UVFP should include computed tomography imaging, but not serology. Elec-
tromyography is useful for predicting poor prognosis (evidence grade C).
Voice therapy can be beneficial, but is not sufficient for many patients with UVFP. In the
short term, injection medialization can achieve comparable clinical results with medializa-
tion thyroplasty. Thyroplasty and reinnervation also achieve comparable voice outcomes
(evidence grade B).
Abbreviations: UNILATERAL VOCAL FOLD PARALYSIS

CT Computed tomography
CXR Chest x-ray/radiograph
LEMG Laryngeal electromyography
UVFP Unilateral vocal fold paralysis
OVERVIEW
Unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP) continues to command attention as a funda-

mental clinical problem in otolaryngology. Its impact on voice, swallowing, and even
airway function is notable. Patients and their physicians have many helpful diagnostic
The authors have no financial disclosures.

a
Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of Minnesota, 420 Dela-
ware Street Southeast, MMC 396, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; b Department of Otolaryngo-
logy/Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 Northeast Pacific Street,
Box 356515, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
E-mail address: smisono@umn.edu

1084 Misono & Merati
and therapeutic options for treatment, but at times this clinical decision making must
occur without the luxury of scientifically established principles and practices. This
article provides an evidence-based overview of (1) the causes and symptoms, (2) eval-
uation, and (3) management of UVFP. Publications addressing aspects of this topic
number in the thousands, and therefore selected articles are presented to provide
a sense of how the evidence has been developed and assessed. The discussion
focuses primarily on UVFP rather than on the broader topic of unilateral vocal fold
immobility. For each topic, the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine levels
of evidence are listed.
Causes of UVFP (Evidence Level 3–4)

The list of potential causes of UVFP is broad, and includes:
Iatrogenic
Traumatic
Neoplasms and thoracic diseases
Systemic
Iatrogenic
Iatrogenic injury is commonly related to retraction and/or dissection along the route
of the recurrent laryngeal nerve or even the vagus itself. Procedures associated
with risk of postoperative vocal fold paralysis include thyroidectomy (0.8%–2.3%
rate of permanent UVFP),1–3 anterior cervical spine surgery (less than 1% risk of
permanent UVFP per recent data),4–7 esophagectomy (w11% risk),7 cardiac/aortic
surgery (w2% risk),8 mediastinoscopy (0.2%–6% risk),9,10 and carotid endarterec-
tomy (w4% risk).11,12
Interpretation of the risks of UVFP associated with surgical procedures can be
confusing because of the difficulty of determining the contribution of underlying
disorders to the postoperative outcome. Without systematic preoperative and postop-
erative assessment of laryngeal function, which may not be clinically feasible, precise
risk of UVFP associated with a given surgical procedure can be difficult to estimate.
The picture is further clouded by the association of endotracheal intubation13 or laryn-
geal mask airway14 with UVFP, although some work has shown that the risk of iatro-
genic UVFP related to retraction may be decreased by ongoing monitoring and
adjustment of endotracheal tube pressure, particularly when retractors are placed
or repositioned.7
Traumatic
Traumatic causes associated with UVFP include high vagal nerve injury caused
by direct trauma, although vagal nerve injuries more commonly result from surgical
removal of masses involving the vagus itself.15 Arytenoid dislocation has been pro-
posed as a cause of unilateral vocal fold immobility but this topic remains controver-
sial; a recent review suggests that the diagnosis cannot be made by laryngoscopy
alone and that there is insufficient evidence in the literature to characterize arytenoid
dislocation as a unique entity.16
Neoplasms and thoracic diseases

Tumors and thoracic problems have also been implicated in the pathophysiology of
UVFP, including lung cancer, thoracic aortic aneurysm, metastases, pulmonary/medi-
astinal tuberculosis, esophageal cancer,11 patent ductus arteriosus,12 and laryngeal
chondrosarcoma.17 Direct infiltration of the recurrent laryngeal nerve can also occur
Evidence-Based Evaluation and Management 1085
with thyroid carcinomas in addition to lung carcinomas as mentioned earlier.18 UVFP

has also been reported after iodine-131 treatment of thyrotoxicosis19,20 or radiation of
other types to the head and neck21 or upper chest.22,23 Tumors in the central nervous
system can also cause UVFP, but typically have a constellation of associated
symptoms.
Systemic
Systemic causes can be divided into a variety of categories. Infectious causes include
West Nile,24 varicella25 and herpes,26 Lyme,27 and syphilis,28 while inflammatory
processes can include sarcoidosis,29 lupus,30 amyloidosis, polyarteritis nodosa, and
silicosis. Neurologic diagnoses associated with vocal fold paralysis include myas-
thenia gravis,31 severe degenerative spine disease,32 multiple sclerosis,33 amyotro-
phic lateral sclerosis,34 Guillain-Barré (although typically bilateral),35 Parkinson (also
more commonly described as bilateral),36 Charcot-Marie-Tooth, and familial hypoka-
lemic periodic paralysis. Diabetes37 or malnutrition, such as B12 deficiency,38 can
contribute, as can medications such as vinca alkaloids.39 Idiopathic UVFP is a diag-
nosis of exclusion and, in those cases, the pathogenesis remains poorly understood.
Evolving Distribution of Causes (Levels 3–4)

Both in the United States and elsewhere, numerous studies have focused on the
relative distribution of causes for UVFP. Neoplasm, trauma, and surgery were the
most consistently cited causes in the 1970s, but the distribution has evolved over
time.40–42 In 1998, a retrospective review by Ramadan and colleagues43 examined
causes in 98 patients with UVFP; they were categorized as neoplastic in 32%, surgical
in 30%, idiopathic in 16%, traumatic in 11%, central in 8%, and infectious in 3%.
Several years later, a large comparative retrospective analysis spanning a 20-year
period was presented by Rosenthal and colleagues,44 comprising 827 patients who
were seen with vocal fold immobility. In the first decade, spanning 1985 to 1995,
the most common cause was malignancy (mostly lung). By contrast, in the second
decade, 1996 to 2005, the most common cause was nonthyroid surgery (including
anterior cervical spine, carotid). Consistent with these findings, a 1-year retrospective
study published in 2006 reported a greater proportion of anterior cervical spine sur-
gery than thyroid, thoracic, or cranial procedures among patients with iatrogenic vocal
fold motion impairment.6
Thus, although the distribution of causes has evolved over time and may vary
depending on geographic location,45–47 commonly reported causes include neo-
plasms, particularly lung and thyroid neoplasms, and postsurgical causes (commonly
spine surgery, carotid surgery, and thyroidectomy), with a persistent minority remain-
ing idiopathic after thorough evaluation.
Natural History of Idiopathic UVFP (Level 4)

Observational studies have provided some insight into the natural history of UVFP.
A retrospective review of 633 patients with vocal fold paralysis diagnosed between
1940 and1949 included 181 of unknown cause. Of those, 31 had respiratory infection
before onset of symptoms, and 29 had incidental findings such as goiter or pharyng-
oesophageal diverticulum, but most had no apparent predisposing factors. Long-term
survival data suggested that patients with truly idiopathic UVFP seemed to have
normal life spans, with 33% chance of vocal improvement over time.48 More recently,
Sulica49 performed a review of the literature and identified 20 articles reporting 717
cases of idiopathic vocal fold paralysis. He reported that idiopathic vocal fold paralysis
comprises 24% 10% of UVFP. When findings from all of the studies were
summarized, complete recovery of motion was observed in 36% 22% and some
recovery (complete and partial) in 39% 20%. Complete recovery of voice was re-
ported in 52% 17%, and some recovery in 61% 22%. Most recovered in less
than a year, but a small minority (5/717) described recovery after more than a year.
As noted in the review, the variable recovery rates reported in different studies likely
relates to heterogeneity of timeframe as well as criteria for defining recovery,49 but
most patients with idiopathic UVFP showed some vocal improvement, typically in
less than a year.
Symptoms (Levels 3–4)

Although evaluation of UVFP is frequently focused on voice complaints (discussed
later), dysphagia and other complaints appear fairly common. In a survey of 63
patients with UVFP secondary to a variety of causes, all patients with UVFP reported
voice problems, 60% reported swallowing problems, and 75% reported subjective
dyspnea.50 In patients with dysphagia and UVFP who underwent flexible endoscopic
evaluation of swallowing studies, liquid bolus retention and penetration were associ-
ated with aspiration in nearly half,51 and the pharyngeal residues were noted at the
base of tongue, valleculae, and piriform sinuses.52 These findings may suggest that
difficulty with swallowing in patients with UVFP is not solely explained by the vocal
fold problem and may reflect associated problems, possibly secondary to the under-
lying cause of the UVFP.52
Quality of Life at Presentation (Levels 3–4)

It is intuitive that UVFP would have a considerable effect on quality of life given the
findings described earlier, and validated scales have shown this impact. In a study
at Vanderbilt University, patients with UVFP prospectively completed The Medical
Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36),53 Voice Handicap Index
(VHI),54 and Voice Outcome Survey (VOS)55 at presentation and at first postoperative
visit after thyroplasty with or without arytenoid adduction. The SF-36 is a general
health status measure, the VHI is a voice-specific handicap measure, and the VOS
is a survey designed to assess vocal quality and life impact of voice-related problems
specifically in patients with UVFP. At presentation, patients with UVFP scored signif-
icantly lower (worse) than normal on all domains of the SF-36 and on the VOS. After
surgery, acoustic and aerodynamic measures of voice were improved. All domains
of the SF-36 were observed to have a trend toward increased scores, with some
domains showing a statistically significant increase. The VHI and its subscales, as
well as the VOS, had significant improvement.56 Several other measures of voice-
related patient-reported quality of life have been used, including the Voice-Related
Quality of Life (VRQOL)57 and a variety of study-specific scales. These and other
studies58 underscore the significant impact of UVFP on both voice-related and overall
health-related quality of life.

Examination for UVFP (Levels 3–5)
Examination of the patient who presents with suspected UVFP may include several
components, including:
Auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice
Acoustic/aerodynamic measurements
Intensity measures
Laryngoscopy
Auditory-perceptual evaluation
Auditory-perceptual evaluation using the GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness,
asthenia, strain) scale shows that patients with UVFP are rated significantly worse
than normal.59 More recently, the Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice
(CAPE-V) was developed for voice disorders in general. Little information is available in
the literature about CAPE-V evaluation of UVFP, but work in postthyroidectomy
patients at Walter Reed Hospital suggest that overall severity, habitual loudness,
habitual pitch, and roughness are parameters that may be affected.60 The challenges
with auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice are well documented and include issues
of interrater and intrarater reliability61,62 as well as the impact of listener experience63
and knowledge of the patient’s history and/or diagnosis.64 In addition, patients’
perceptual self-ratings seemed to be distinct from those of trained listeners.65 Patient
ratings of the impact of vocal problems on quality of life do not correlate well with
auditory-perceptual judgments.66 Nonetheless, these judgments do allow raters to
follow voice changes over time.
Acoustic and aerodynamic evaluation

Acoustic and aerodynamic evaluation in UVFP shows worse jitter, shimmer, noise/
harmonic ratio, and maximum phonation time compared with normal voice.59 As noted
by Behrman,67 acoustic and aerodynamic measures, although sometimes thought to
be objective, are not truly so, because of the need for behavioral investment on the
part of both patient and clinician to obtain representative phonatory samples and the
challenge of performing some of these measurements when vocal fold vibration is irreg-
ular.67 The relevance and validity of measures such as maximum phonation time and
s/z ratio is also questioned because, in some cases, suboptimal techniques such as
excessive supraglottic recruitment can lead to apparently improved maximum vocal
performance measures. Nonetheless, these measures are frequently reported. Devel-
opment of nonlinear, random time-series analysis may provide further information, but
is in its early stages.68 Another potentially promising technique is spectral moment
analysis.69 Reduction of cepstral peak prominence has been observed in patients
with UVFP compared with controls, but it is unclear whether this is diagnostic.70
Intensity
Intensity has been used occasionally as a measure of vocal function, particularly
habitual speaking intensity (loudness) and/or maximum physiologic dynamic range;
these measures may be more closely related to the patient’s assessment of vocal
impact of vocal fold paralysis.67
Laryngoscopy
Laryngoscopy is an essential part of the evaluation of UVFP. The most common lar-
yngoscopic findings beyond vocal fold motion impairment include bowing, incomplete
glottal closure, and phase asymmetry on videostroboscopy.59 The position of the
vocal fold (eg, paramedian vs lateral) does not necessarily clarify the location of the
lesion along the neurologic pathway from brain to motion of vocal fold.71 However,
the paralyzed side does tend to be shortened and arytenoid is commonly anteriorly
rotated.71 Passive gliding motion of arytenoid is seen in 91% patients with UVFP
examined by three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT), and caudal
displacement in 100%.72 Some have suggested that the position and shape of the
false vocal fold may be informative, but this is controversial.73 The specific value of
stroboscopy compared with routine flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy has also been
debated, and its use is limited by challenges in capturing an adequate signal in
profoundly dysphonic patients.74
Imaging for UVFP (Levels 3–5)

A variety of imaging techniques have been used in the work-up of patients with sus-
pected UVFP. In a survey of members of the American Broncho-Esophagological
Association, respondents indicated75 that: Chest radiography (CXR) and/or neck/
chest CT is always or often necessary (69%–72%). Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) was thought to be always or often necessary by 39%, sometimes by 51%.
CXR and CT
An area of particular interest is the comparison of CXR versus neck/chest CT
(typically with contrast) for evaluation of possible causes of UVFP given the con-
siderable differences in cost and exposure to radiation. CXR can detect important
diagnoses such as goiter and pulmonary fibrosis,48 but may miss findings detected
by CT,76 particularly those in the left aortopulmonary window.77 It has also been
suggested that MRI is more sensitive, but carries a higher rate of false-
positives.78
Because of the false-negative rate seen on CXR, several algorithms have been
proposed for imaging used as part of the work-up of UVFP. Altman and Benninger79
described starting with CXR and proceeding with CT or MRI if the CXR is negative. The
CT is performed from skull base to thoracic inlet for right UVFP, and skull base to aortic
triangle for left UVFP. In contrast, El Badawey and colleagues45 described primary use
of CT, without routine use of CXR.
Liu and colleagues78 described stratification of patients with newly diagnosed
UVFP using clinical findings (such as a history of malignancy) to divide into high-
suspicion and low-suspicion groups. They then examined costs associated with
imaging for each group. The high-suspicion group work-up (which included MR
and/or CT) cost $2304 per true-positive, whereas the low-suspicion group cost
$10,849 per true-positive case.78 An implication of these findings is that imaging
could be deferred for the low-suspicion group, but the associated risks and costs
of delayed diagnosis need to be evaluated thoroughly before making such a
recommendation.
Ultrasound
The use of ultrasound has attracted more attention in recent years47; neck ultra-
sonography identified subclinical tumors in 30% of 53 patients with UVFP, including
papillary thyroid carcinoma and metastatic cervical lymph nodes from lung and other
cancers.80 Some describe using ultrasound if physical examination suggests low right
recurrent laryngeal nerve impairment.81
Positron emission tomography

Although positron emission tomography (PET) scanning is not routinely used in the
diagnosis of UVFP, it is important to be aware of the potential for misleading results
on PET that are related to the presence of UVFP. Several studies have shown that,
when UVFP is present, the contralateral normal side can have high fluorodeoxyglu-
cose uptake thought to be secondary to attempted compensatory motion, potentially
raising misleading concern for malignancy.82,83 These findings have most commonly
been described in patients with primary lung malignancies who had secondary unilat-
eral recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. Other potentially misleading findings arise
from the treatment of UVFP; granulomas that arise from the use of Teflon (polytetra-
fluoroethylene, DuPont, Wilmington, DE) for injection medialization can lead to false-
positive findings on PET,84 as can an elastomer suspension implant (trade name
Vox, Uroplasty Inc., Minnetonka, MN).85
Summary of evidence on recommended imaging

The ideal algorithm for imaging in the work-up of UVFP remains controversial.
Evidence in the literature is inadequate to make a blanket recommendation, but
numerous studies have reported the use of imaging to identify significant abnormali-
ties in patients who present with idiopathic vocal fold paralysis, and cross-sectional
imaging is likely indicated. It can be difficult to directly synthesize across studies given
different recruitment and/or inclusion criteria. Prospective controlled studies are
necessary for further evaluation. Other factors to consider include cost and exposure
to radiation.86
Serology in UVFP (Levels 3–5)

Use of serology in the evaluation of patients with UVFP has been described in a variety
of studies. A survey of American Broncho-Esophagological Association members
indicated that 54% of respondents indicated that serum tests could be considered
as part of a work-up, but most (80%) of these indicated that the tests were appropriate
only occasionally or rarely. The most commonly mentioned tests were rheumatoid
factor (38%), Lyme titer (36%), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (34%), and antinuclear
antibody (ANA) (33%).75 Review of the literature at that time showed mostly case
reports, with 1 case-control study on diabetes37,75; sarcoidosis and ANA were also
frequently addressed but there remains no population-based information. There
remains no definite evidence to support routine serology in patients with UVFP who
do not have signs/symptoms of underlying disease, and practitioners are likely best
served by ordering serology only if they have a clinical index of suspicion for particular
associated diseases.
Laryngeal Electromyography (Levels 2–5)

The inclusion of laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) in the evaluation of patients with
UVFP has garnered attention as a technique that could evaluate the current neurologic
status of the affected vocal fold and perhaps provide prognostic information. Although
the increasing popularity of injection medialization has perhaps tempered the impact
of LEMG because immediate and temporary intervention is now available, interest in
electromyography (EMG) continues. In a 2005 survey of members of the American
Broncho-Esophagological Association, 75% of respondents used EMG to evaluate
UVFP. These evaluations were typically performed in an unblinded fashion (85%);
66% of respondents thought that having clinical information was helpful. Congruent
results were generally reported, with some variability.87
In 2009, the Neurolaryngology Study Group of the American Academy of Otolaryn-
gology/Head and Neck Surgery convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop recom-
mendations based on available evidence combined with expert opinion in areas in
which evidence was not yet available. They summarized data that may suggest useful-
ness of EMG, but concluded that EMG was primarily a qualitative, not quantitative,
examination. The study group advocated caution regarding the use of EMG data for
early management of UVFP, and encouraged consideration of serial examinations.
General recommendations included the need for prospective and blinded studies as
well as standardized methods and interpretations.88 A 2012 meta-analysis by Rickert
and colleagues89 examined the usefulness of LEMG for prognosis in vocal fold palsy
using laryngoscopy as the gold standard; their analysis showed that, among patients
with abnormal findings such as fibrillations, positive sharp waves, and absent or
reduced voluntary motor unit potentials, 91% had no recovery of vocal fold mobility,
although the length of follow-up was variable across the included studies.89 Other pro-
posed methods for LEMG interpretation include interference pattern analysis, which
allows description of motor unit recruitment90 in patients with UVFP, and the use of the
ratio of mean peak-to-peak amplitude comparing motor unit amplitude on sniff versus
sustained phonation for evaluation of synkinesis and associated poor prognosis for
recovery.91
The current evidence indicates that LEMG with negative prognostic factors is likely
to predict a poor functional outcome, but the optimal timing of LEMG in relation to
symptom onset remains unclear. Prospective blinded studies are needed to confirm
these and other potential ways to use LEMG in a quantitative, objective, and reproduc-
ible fashion.
EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICAL MANAGEMENT AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Speech Pathology
Voice therapy (Level 4)
Several studies have described the use of voice therapy in the management of UVFP,
although there is an opportunity in the literature for further examination of this issue.
Although swallowing therapy is outside the scope of this article, techniques may
include chin tuck, neck extension, head turn, supraglottic and supersupraglottic
swallow, and/or dietary modification. Some patients also benefit from oral motor ex-
ercises, vocal adduction exercises, Valsalva swallow, and Mendelsohn maneuvers.92
Voice therapy in UVFP is typically directed at abdominal breathing and humming/
resonant voice to improve closure of the glottis, encourage abdominal breath support,
and improve vocal fold function while avoiding supraglottic hyperfunction.
Depending on the study, significant numbers of patients with UVFP who opted for
voice therapy reported vocal improvement subjectively or as measured by glottal
closure, acoustic measurements, pitch range, and/or patient-reported voice hand-
icap.93,94 Interpretation of the impact of voice therapy in UVFP may be obscured
by returning neurologic function,95 and it is unknown whether there is a relationship
between voice therapy and neurologic recovery.
Other studies have also suggested the usefulness of voice therapy in the manage-
ment of UVFP,96,97 but there is often no comparison group, making it difficult to assess
whether voice therapy affected the likelihood of these improvements. Randomized
controlled studies may be difficult to perform in this area because patients who desire
surgery may not be receptive to randomization into voice therapy, and vice versa, but
controlled studies may be possible using alternate study designs. An additional chal-
lenge to studying this topic is the variability of therapy techniques across institutions or
across individual therapists.
Surgical Techniques for UVFP

Medialization
One of the mainstays of surgical treatment of UVFP is the concept of medialization, in
which the paralyzed vocal fold is displaced toward the midline to facilitate glottal
closure. The ideal timing for medialization remains unclear. Some have postulated
that the immobile cricoarytenoid joint may become fixed over time,98 whereas other
studies suggest that joint mobility may remain intact even many years after onset of
paralysis.99,100 Other studies examine voice and other functional outcomes after early
medialization versus late medialization, and these are discussed later.
Injection medialization (levels 1–4) Injection medialization of the vocal fold was first
performed in 1911 by Brunings via peroral injection using paraffin. This technique
lost popularity until the development of other injectables that were thought to be
less reactogenic. A recent retrospective review from multiple institutions summarized
characteristics and complications of 460 injections for augmentation of the vocal folds
of which 54% were performed for vocal fold paralysis. There was an even split
between awake injections performed in clinic versus those performed under general
anesthesia. Most awake injections (47%) were performed via transcricothyroid
approach. Also frequent were: Perioral: 23% and Transthyrohyoid: 21%.
Reported technical success rates were 97% or greater and complication rates were
3% or less, with no difference between awake and asleep techniques. Use of injection
augmentation in awake patients is increasing; over the 5-year period from 2003 to
2008, the rate increased from 11% to 43%.101 The goal of injection medialization is
to reposition the vocal fold medially, allowing contact between the affected side
and the normal side (Fig. 1). Recent data suggest that injection medialization causes
passive medial rotation and translation of the arytenoid cartilage.102
Injection medialization materials A variety of materials is now available for use in

injection medialization. The literature was recently summarized by Paniello,103 who
examined findings from 42 articles describing up to 30 patients each with follow-up
time up to 1 year, describing injection medialization and voice outcomes as reflected
by a variety of measures.
All studies showed vocal improvement after injection medialization.

There were 2 level I studies, both by Hertegard and colleagues,104,105 describing
the use of hyaluronan versus collagen for injection; their findings suggested
better vibratory function and less resorption of hyaluron over time.
The remainder of the studies described injection with fat, collagen, acellular
dermis, fascia, Teflon, silicone, and other materials.
The largest proportion of articles described the use of fat injection.
Most did not compare different types of injectables, and longer clinical follow-up
was not available.103
Fig. 1. A hemicoronal section through the larynx, showing the placement of an injectable
material to medialize the affected vocal fold. (From Fakhry C, Flint PW, Cummings CW.
Medialization thyroplasty. In: Cummings otolaryngology. 5th edition. Philadelphia: Mosby
Elsevier; 2010; with permission.)
The multi-institutional retrospective review by Sulica and colleagues101 gave a sense

of current practice patterns:
Used most commonly for awake injections:

Methylcellulose: 35%
Bovine collagen: 28%
Calcium hydroxylapatite: 26%
Used most commonly in the operating room:

Calcium hydroxylapatite: 36%
Methylcellulose: 35%
Though Teflon was previously popular because of its long duration and because it is
easy to inject, Teflon injection is associated with giant cell granulomas that persist
decades after injection106 and are challenging to address surgically.107 Some prob-
lems may have been related to technique,108,109 and some investigators describe
vocal rehabilitation with multiple surgical procedures, but the potential disadvantages
render Teflon difficult to support except in rare cases, particularly when other alterna-
tives exist.
Individual surgeon preferences for use of a given injectable may also depend on
characteristics of each material, including duration, ease of use, cost, and rheologic
properties. Several of the commonly used injectable materials are summarized in
Table 1.
Although there is an estimated duration of effect quoted for each injectable, the
literature reveals a wide range of reported durations. For example, several studies
described an effect of greater than 1 year in patients with UVFP who underwent injec-
tions with micronized dermis.115,116 The assessment of duration of effect for injection
medialization may be complex because of the possibility of partial improvement in
neurologic function, which may improve the tone of the paralyzed vocal fold without
restoring motion.
Numerous injectables are in active use, which suggests that no single injectable
is definitively superior to the others, and nuanced decision making with respect to
selection of injectable may be appropriate. Further investigation, perhaps with more
randomized head-to-head comparisons, may clarify the potential usefulness of dif-
ferent substances.
Complications of injection medialization As described earlier, complications are
rare. Reported risks include prolonged stridor, need for intubation, and postinjection
dysphonia121 secondary to subepithelial injection and/or overinjection.101 Particular
caution is important to avoid superficial injection, because injectate can persist for
years.122 Rare risks include intralaryngeal migration of injectate123 and abscess at
the site of injection.124
Timing of injection medialization Timing of injection medialization may affect
long-term outcomes. In all comers, overall need for permanent medialization (eg,
medialization thyroplasty) is approximately 20% to 30% after injection.116,125 Early
medialization (1–4 days) after the onset of UVFP after thoracic surgery has been asso-
ciated with significantly fewer cases of pneumonia and a shorter length of stay
compared with late medialization (greater than 5 days after onset).126 There are now
data to suggest that early injection medialization may be associated with a lower
rate of eventual need for permanent medialization thyroplasty.127,128 Taken together,
these data suggest that early injection medialization may be helpful, and that early
Table 1
Examples of vocal fold injection materials
Length Amount Needle FDA Estimated

Material Sample Trade Names of Effect Injected Gauge Approval Comments Cost
Autologous fascia NA ? months Overinject 18–22 NA Requires harvest NA
to year
Autologous fat NA ? y; variable Overinject 18–22 NA Requires harvest NA
Cadaveric micronized Cymetra (LifeCell, 2–4 mo; Overinject 18–25 Yes Requires preparation $400
dermis Branchburg, NJ) some >1 y
Evidence-Based Evaluation and Management

Calcium Radiesse Voice (Merz Aesthetics, >1 y Slightly 25 Yes Place lateral to ligament; $260
hydroxylapatite San Mateo, CA) overinject poor rheologic properties
Carboxymethylcellulose Radiesse Voice Gel 2–3 mo Slightly 27 Yes — $220
(Merz Aesthetics) overinject
Hyaluronic acid gels Restylane, Perlane (Medicis 6–9 mo Slightly 27 No Good compliance, ?230
Aesthetics, Scottsdale, AZ) overinject rheologic
properties
Porcine gelatin Gelfoam (Pfizer, New York, NY) 4–8 wk Overinject 18 No Requires preparation ?$60
Several collagen preparations, including Zyplast, Cosmoplast, and Cosmoderm, and the hyaluronic acid preparations Hylaform and Hylaform Plus (Allergan, Irvine
CA), have been discontinued in recent years. Information presented in this table was acquired from multiple sources, including relevant articles in the litera-
ture110–120 and vendor/manufacturer information. FDA, US Food and Drug Administration; NA, not applicable. "?" indicates that the effect/cost shown is
speculative.
1093
positioning of the vocal fold may affect long-term outcomes, but further studies are
necessary to develop refined recommendations for patients with newly diagnosed
UVFP.
Medialization thyroplasty (levels 2–4) A more long-lasting approach to medialization

of the paralyzed true vocal fold was originally described by Payr129 in 1915, who used
a cartilage flap pressed inward from a thyroid cartilage window to reposition the para-
lyzed vocal fold. This technique was later modified by Isshiki,130,131 who described use
of mobilized thyroid cartilage inserted through the window, and further adapted it with
the use of alloplastic material. As with injection medialization, early medialization thy-
roplasty has been associated with fewer diagnoses of pneumonia and shorter lengths
of stay after thoracic surgeries, as mentioned earlier.126 The procedure has commonly
necessitated overnight observation, but some have moved toward risk stratifica-
tion,132 suggesting that, in patients with low risk factors for complications, day surgery
could be considered.133
Thyroplasty materials As with injection medialization, a variety of implant types is
available, although the current literature most commonly presents data for patients
undergoing medialization with a carved Silastic (polymeric silicone, Dow Corning,
Midland, MI) implant (Fig. 2). In a 2008 comprehensive evidence-based review by Pan-
iello, 52 articles describing the impact of open implant medialization on subjective and
objective voice outcomes were summarized:
There was no level 1 evidence.
There was some level 2 evidence for Silastic, Montgomery (Boston Medical
Products, Westborough, MA), GORE-TEX (W.L. Gore and Associates, Elkton,
MD), and other types of implants.
Most reported improvement in voice outcomes using auditory-perceptual and
aerodynamic/acoustic measures.103
Fig. 2. A polymer implant used in a medialization thyroplasty to permanently medially

displace the vocal fold. This procedure allows adjustment of the position of the vocal fold
in 3 dimensions. On the left is an oblique coronal view, on the right is an axial view.
(From Fried MP, editor. The larynx. 2nd edition. St Louis (MO): Elsevier; 1996. p. 213; with
permission.)
More recently, some direct comparisons between titanium implants and other mate-
rials have been published, with some suggestion that titanium may be superior134,135
for restoration of voice quality, but additional work is necessary before a definitive
conclusion is possible.
Thyroplasty procedure Although the details of the procedure may be surgeon

specific, intraoperative measurement of maximum phonation time may be useful
in predicting postoperative outcomes. Although the maximum phonation time is
typically lower when supine, and may be lower under sedation, the relative
improvement in maximum phonation time at the time of medialization is thought
to be informative.136
Adjunct procedures at the time of medialization thyroplasty may include arytenoid
adduction,137 arytenopexy,138 or even cricothyroid approximation.139 Arytenoid
adduction does not necessarily change the laryngoscopic appearance in a predictable
way.140 Some data suggest that arytenopexy may also lead to improved phonatory
results141; a cadaver study suggests improved harmonic profile with arytenopexy
compared with arytenoid adduction.142 To our knowledge, there are no studies that
directly compare results of the 2 techniques in vivo.
Thyroplasty complications For medialization thyroplasty, there is an 8% estimated

rate of complications requiring medical or surgical intervention,143 including:
Edema
Wound complications
Extrusion
Need for tracheotomy
Higher complication risks have been observed in patients on anticoagulation, with

atrophic/absent tissue, and/or undergoing revision surgery.133
Rare reported complications include creation of a window in cricoid cartilage,
leading to airway obstruction when the implant was placed,144 as well as implant
extrusion in 2.1% and implant malpositioning in 1.3%.103
Common indications for revision surgery include:145
Arytenoid rotation with persistent posterior glottic gap

Implant malposition
Implant extrusion
Airway complications are more commonly reported after arytenoid adduction than
after medialization laryngoplasty.146 Although medialization is often described as
reversible because the implant may be removed, placement of the implant has been
associated with permanent changes in joint mobility and/or fibrosis in an experimental
animal model.147
Thyroplasty outcomes Medialization thyroplasty has a very good overall and long-
term effect. Although some have raised the question of late-onset vocal fold atrophy
and whether that renders implant medialization less effective over time,145 most inves-
tigators show excellent persistence of vocal improvement at 3 months after surgery,
with stable or greater improvement at the 1-year time point.148–152 Longer-term data
are scant, but Leder and Sasaki149 showed long-term improvement in maximum
phonation time and other characteristics that persisted more than 3 years after medial-
ization thyroplasty. Despite possible variability in the first several months after medial-
ization, the overall vocal improvement seems robust and long lasting.
Although medialization thyroplasty is effective, there may be room for improvement.

Gray and colleagues153 assessed vocal function in 15 patients 1 year after type I thyro-
plasty with cartilage, Silastic, or GORE-TEX, and variable causes of vocal fold paralysis:
Some voice characteristics (pitch, intonation, loudness) were not statistically

different from normal.
Other voice characteristics (strain, breathiness, hoarseness, harshness, un-
steadiness) were different.
When patients were surveyed:
92% reported that surgery helped with their voices
73% were generally or extremely satisfied
87% thought that their voices were still abnormal
25% had adjusted their employment to accommodate their voices
This information is important to keep in mind when counseling patients regarding

postoperative expectations.
Comparing injection medialization versus medialization thyroplasty: level 3

Voice Several studies have compared results of injection medialization and medializa-
tion thyroplasty. Many have not showed a meaningful difference between the 2
techniques,154–156 but several reported a trend toward greater improvement after
medialization thyroplasty in the long term.157–159 As noted by Paniello in systematic
review of a subset of these articles, a challenge to the interpretation of these data is
the variable length of follow-up time and small sample sizes. Studies with longer
follow-up time tended to favor results of medialization thyroplasty.103 Different injec-
tion materials across studies and, in some cases, incomplete data render overall com-
parisons difficult to make. In addition, randomization to injection medialization versus
medialization thyroplasty may not be acceptable to patients. The available data sug-
gest that, in the short term, injection medialization and medialization thyroplasty are
likely comparable with respect to voice outcomes but that, in the long term, medializa-
tion thyroplasty may provide better voice results. More investigation is needed to
clarify and compare long-term outcomes.
Swallowing Few studies have compared the impact of injection medialization to that
of medialization thyroplasty on swallowing, but no significant difference has been
detected in the improvement of swallowing between patients who underwent injection
medialization versus those who underwent medialization thyroplasty.160,161
Medialization thyroplasty versus medialization thyroplasty with arytenoid adduction

(levels 3–4)
Another debated topic is the consideration of arytenoid adduction when medialization
thyroplasty is performed. In excised canine larynges, studies suggested differences
between injection, thyroplasty, and thyroplasty with arytenoid adduction; injection
reduced mucosal wave amplitude, but medialization thyroplasty with or without aryte-
noid adduction increased amplitude. Overall, medialization with arytenoid adduction
resulted in the greatest improvement in phonatory measurements including phonation
threshold flow, phonation threshold power, and signal/noise ratio.162
A small number of studies have undertaken this comparison in patients, with some
showing no difference between the 2 groups143 and others showing greater improve-
ment or a trend in that direction after medialization thyroplasty with arytenoid adduc-
tion.143,163–165 Formal summary evaluation of these studies is difficult because of
heterogeneous patient groups, implant types, and measurement of preoperative
and postoperative outcomes. There is little evidence on whether these techniques

have a differential impact on swallowing.
Laryngeal reinnervation (levels 1–4) Another approach to the management of UVFP

has been laryngeal reinnervation, which takes advantage of the presence of other func-
tioning nerves in the anatomic vicinity to improve tone and/or mobility of the paralyzed
side.166 Options for laryngeal reinnervation include ansa,98 phrenic,98 hypoglossal,167
and nerve-muscle pedicles (Fig. 3).168–170 Approaches have included selective in-
nervation of different muscles in the same setting (eg, adductor and abductor)98 or
targeted reinnervation of a selected muscle (eg, lateral cricoarytenoid or thyroaryte-
noid).170 Some studies have described the use of various laryngeal reinnervation tech-
niques in combination with arytenoid adduction.171–173
In a systematic review of the literature, Paniello identified 11 studies, levels 3 to 4,
with either a trend toward or statistically significant improvement of voice parameters
as assessed by auditory-perceptual evaluation, acoustic/aerodynamic measures, and/
or laryngoscopy or stroboscopy. The complication rate was low, with 1 delayed trache-
ostomy tube placement reported (2%).103 As he noted, there is great clinical variability
Fig. 3. Reinnervation techniques. Different methods for laryngeal reinnervation, including

(A) direct ansa–recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) anastomoses: (Aa) identification of ansa cer-
vicalis branch to sternohyoid muscle, (Ab) identification of recurrent laryngeal nerve, (Ac)
anastomosis of the 2 nerves, and (B) use of neuromuscular pedicle: (Ba) neuromuscular
pedicle harvest using ansa cervicalis branch to omohyoid muscle, (Bb) neuromuscular
pedicle placement into lateral cricoarytenoid muscle via laryngeal cartilage window. SCM,
sternocleidomastoid muscle. (From Cummings otolaryngology. 5th edition. Mosby: Elsevier.
Fig. 68-2 and 68-1; with permission.)
in the evidence currently in the literature; depending on the study, there are different
reinnervation techniques, possible concomitant procedures, different timing of reinner-
vation, patient ages, and length of follow-up.103 A varying degree of synkinesis from
misdirected reinnervation of laryngeal abductors and/or adductors can also compli-
cate the picture,91,174–176 as can the use of voice therapy.
Medialization thyroplasty versus laryngeal reinnervation (levels 1–3)

Tucker177 compared nerve-muscle pedicle with medialization thyroplasty versus
medialization thyroplasty alone; expert listeners rated voice outcomes better after
combined reinnervation and medialization thyroplasty. This study was not random-
ized, but helped to lay the groundwork for a major trial.
Paniello and colleagues178 performed a multicenter randomized clinical trial com-
paring medialization thyroplasty versus reinnervation using the ansa cervicalis nerve.
The trial included 24 patients, 12 in each arm. Preoperative and postoperative voice
was evaluated using perceptual rating by untrained listeners, blinded speech pathol-
ogists’ GRBAS ratings, the VRQOL scale, and, secondarily, maximum phonation time,
cepstral analysis, and EMG. At 12 months after surgery:
Both groups had significant improvement in perceptual ratings, GRBAS, and

VRQOL, and no significant difference between the groups; however, more
detailed analysis revealed that patient age seemed to be an important variable.
Patients less than 52 years old who underwent reinnervation had better postop-
erative auditory-perceptual ratings than those in the same age group who under-
went medialization.
Patients less than 52 years old who underwent reinnervation had better voice
results than those more than 52 years old who underwent reinnervation.
Among those more than 52 years old, voice results were better after medializa-
tion thyroplasty than after reinnervation.
As in prior studies of surgical intervention for UVFP, most of the voice results did
not reach normal as measured by GRBAS and VRQOL. However, cepstral anal-
ysis showed better voicing in the reinnervated group, and reinnervated patients
less than 52 years old approached normal values.
At the conclusion of study, several additional surgeries were planned for study
patients, including injection augmentation in 2 of the medialization patients and
thyroplasties in 2 of the reinnervated patients, suggesting that some patients
may benefit from multiple procedures.
In addition to a new nuanced picture of tailored surgical approaches for patients of
different ages who present with UVFP, this trial provided some valuable insights into
the challenges of performing this type of study. The investigators described difficulty
with both accrual and randomization, noting that both patients and surgeons had diffi-
culty accepting randomization. Nonetheless, it stands as an inspiring example of a
well-conducted study that addressed a focused and meaningful clinical question.
WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE TELL US?
Presentation (evidence grade C). A wide variety of causes can lead to UVFP;
the distribution of these causes has evolved over time. Post-surgical, idiopathic,
and neoplasm-related UVFP remain common.
Evaluation (evidence grade C). In the work-up of UVFP, imaging may be reason-
able (CXR is not sufficient, CT is more informative, ultrasound may be useful), but
the routine use of serology is not well supported. LEMG with fibrillations, positive
sharp waves, and/or absent or reduced voluntary motor unit potentials predicts
a lack of functionally meaningful recovery, but the ideal timing of LEMG after
symptom onset remains to be defined.
Management (evidence grade B). Data on voice therapy suggest a positive
impact, but further studies are needed. Injection medialization is widely used,
and a variety of injectables may be considered. Current evidence suggests that
initial voice outcomes after injection medialization are similar to those after medi-
alization thyroplasty, but long-term results may favor the latter. Laryngeal reinner-
vation has been shown to have comparable vocal impact with that of
medialization thyroplasty, and surgical decision making should take patient age
into account. Some patients may benefit from multiple procedures.
There is a need for ongoing systematic reviews of the literature and more
randomized controlled trials.
Critical Points
UVFP has a broad range of causes, including postsurgical, idiopathic, and
neoplasm-related causes (evidence grade C).
Work-up should include cross-sectional imaging, but not serology. EMG is useful
for predicting poor prognosis (evidence grade C).
Voice therapy can be beneficial, but is not sufficient for many patients with UVFP.
In the short term, injection medialization can achieve comparable clinical results
with medialization thyroplasty. Thyroplasty and reinnervation also achieve com-
parable voice outcomes (evidence grade B).
REFERENCES
1. Bhattacharyya N, Fried MP. Assessment of the morbidity and complications of

total thyroidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128(4):389–92.
2. Jeannon JP, Orabi AA, Bruch GA, et al. Diagnosis of recurrent laryngeal nerve
palsy after thyroidectomy: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract 2009;63(4):624–9.
3. Lee KE, Koo do H, Kim SJ, et al. Outcomes of 109 patients with papillary thyroid
carcinoma who underwent robotic total thyroidectomy with central node dissec-
tion via the bilateral axillo-breast approach. Surgery 2010;148(6):1207–13.
4. Netterville JL, Koriwchak MJ, Winkle M, et al. Vocal fold paralysis following the
anterior approach to the cervical spine. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105(2):
85–91.
5. Heeneman H. Vocal cord paralysis following approaches to the anterior cervical
spine. Laryngoscope 1973;83(1):17–21.
6. Merati AL, Shemirani N, Smith TL, et al. Changing trends in the nature of vocal
fold motion impairment. Am J Otolaryngol 2006;27(2):106–8.
7. Kriskovich MD, Apfelbaum RI, Haller JR. Vocal fold paralysis after anterior
cervical spine surgery: incidence, mechanism, and prevention of injury. Laryn-
goscope 2000;110(9):1467–73.
8. Itagaki T, Kikura M, Sato S. Incidence and risk factors of postoperative vocal
cord paralysis in 987 patients after cardiovascular surgery. Ann Thorac Surg
2007;83(6):2147–52.
9. Widstrom A. Palsy of the recurrent nerve following mediastinoscopy. Chest
1975;67(3):365–6.
10. Roberts JR, Wadsworth J. Recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring during media-
stinoscopy: predictors of injury. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83(2):388–91 [discus-
sion: 391–2].
11. Bando H, Nishio T, Bamba H, et al. Vocal fold paralysis as a sign of chest
diseases: a 15-year retrospective study. World J Surg 2006;30(3):293–8.
12. Hardy JD, Webb WR, Timmis H, et al. Patent ductus arteriosus: operative treat-
ment of 100 consecutive patients with isolated lesions without mortality. Ann
Surg 1966;164(5):877–82.
13. Kikura M, Suzuki K, Itagaki T, et al. Age and comorbidity as risk factors for vocal
cord paralysis associated with tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 2007;98(4):
524–30.
14. Lowinger D, Benjamin B, Gadd L. Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury caused by
a laryngeal mask airway. Anaesth Intensive Care 1999;27(2):202–5.
15. Fang TJ, Tam YY, Courey MS, et al. Unilateral high vagal paralysis: relationship
of the severity of swallowing disturbance and types of injuries. Laryngoscope
2011;121(2):245–9.
16. Norris BK, Schweinfurth JM. Arytenoid dislocation: an analysis of the contempo-
rary literature. Laryngoscope 2011;121(1):142–6.
17. Leonetti JP, Collins SL, Jablokow V, et al. Laryngeal chondrosarcoma as a late-
appearing cause of “idiopathic” vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 1987;97(4):391–5.
18. McCaffrey TV, Lipton RJ. Thyroid carcinoma invading the upper aerodigestive
system. Laryngoscope 1990;100(8):824–30.
19. Coover LR. Permanent iatrogenic vocal cord paralysis after I-131 therapy:
a case report and literature review. Clin Nucl Med 2000;25(7):508–10.
20. Snyder S. Vocal cord paralysis after radioiodine therapy. J Nucl Med 1978;19(8):
975–6.
21. Stern Y, Marshak G, Shpitzer T, et al. Vocal cord palsy: possible late complica-
tion of radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995;
104(4 Pt 1):294–6.
22. Lau DP, Lo YL, Wee J, et al. Vocal fold paralysis following radiotherapy for nasopha-
ryngeal carcinoma: laryngeal electromyography findings. J Voice 2003;17(1):82–7.
23. Westbrook KC, Ballantyne AJ, Eckles NE, et al. Breast cancer and vocal cord
paralysis. South Med J 1974;67(7):805–7.
24. Steele NP, Myssiorek D. West Nile virus induced vocal fold paralysis. Laryngo-
scope 2006;116(3):494–6.
25. Chitose SI, Umeno H, Hamakawa S, et al. Unilateral associated laryngeal paral-
ysis due to varicella-zoster virus: virus antibody testing and videofluoroscopic
findings. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122(2):170–6.
26. Magnussen CR, Patanella HP. Herpes simplex virus and recurrent laryngeal
nerve paralysis. Report of a case and review of the literature. Arch Intern Med
1979;139(12):1423–4.
27. Schroeter V, Belz GG, Blenk H. Paralysis of recurrent laryngeal nerve in Lyme
disease. Lancet 1988;2(8622):1245.
28. Rabkin R. Paralysis of the larynx due to central nervous system syphilis. Eye Ear
Nose Throat Mon 1963;42:53.
29. Chijimatsu Y, Tajima J, Washizaki M, et al. Hoarseness as an initial manifestation
of sarcoidosis. Chest 1980;78(5):779–81.
30. Kraus A, Guerra-Bautista G. Laryngeal involvement as a presenting symptom of
systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 1990;49(6):421.
31. Carpenter RJ 3rd, McDonald TJ, Howard FM Jr. The otolaryngologic presenta-
tion of myasthenia gravis. Laryngoscope 1979;89(6 Pt 1):922–8.
32. Yoskovitch A, Kantor S. Cervical osteophytes presenting as unilateral vocal fold
paralysis and dysphagia. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115(5):422–4.
33. Rontal E, Rontal M, Wald J, et al. Botulinum toxin injection in the treatment of
vocal fold paralysis associated with multiple sclerosis: a case report. J Voice
1999;13(2):274–9.
34. Polkey MI, Lyall RA, Green M, et al. Expiratory muscle function in amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;158(3):734–41.
35. Holinger LD, Holinger PC, Holinger PH. Etiology of bilateral abductor vocal
cord paralysis: a review of 389 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1976;85(4 Pt 1):
428–36.
36. Plasse HM, Lieberman AN. Bilateral vocal cord paralysis in Parkinson’s disease.
Arch Otolaryngol 1981;107(4):252–3.
37. Schechter GL, Kostianovsky M. Vocal cord paralysis in diabetes mellitus. Trans
Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1972;76(3):729–40.
38. Ahn TB, Cho JW, Jeon BS. Unusual neurological presentations of vitamin B(12)
deficiency. Eur J Neurol 2004;11(5):339–41.
39. Burns BV, Shotton JC. Vocal fold palsy following vinca alkaloid treatment.
J Laryngol Otol 1998;112(5):485–7.
40. Titche LL. Causes of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. Arch Otolaryngol 1976;
102(5):259–61.
41. Parnell FW, Brandenburg JH. Vocal cord paralysis. A review of 100 cases.
Laryngoscope 1970;80(7):1036–45.
42. Maisel RH, Ogura JH. Evaluation and treatment of vocal cord paralysis. Laryn-
goscope 1974;84(2):302–16.
43. Ramadan HH, Wax MK, Avery S. Outcome and changing cause of unilateral
vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118(2):199–202.
44. Rosenthal LH, Benninger MS, Deeb RH. Vocal fold immobility: a longitudinal
analysis of etiology over 20 years. Laryngoscope 2007;117(10):1864–70.
45. El Badawey MR, Punekar S, Zammit-Maempel I. Prospective study to assess
vocal cord palsy investigations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138(6):
788–90.
46. Chen HC, Jen YM, Wang CH, et al. Etiology of vocal cord paralysis. ORL J
Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2007;69(3):167–71.
47. Furukawa M, Furukawa MK, Ooishi K. Statistical analysis of malignant tumors
detected as the cause of vocal cord paralysis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat
Spec 1994;56(3):161–5.
48. Huppler EG, Schmidt HW, Devine KD, et al. Ultimate outcome of patients
with vocal-cord paralysis of undetermined cause. Am Rev Tuberc 1956;73(1):
52–60.
49. Sulica L. The natural history of idiopathic unilateral vocal fold paralysis:
evidence and problems. Laryngoscope 2008;118(7):1303–7.
50. Brunner E, Friedrich G, Kiesler K, et al. Subjective breathing impairment in
unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2011;63:142–6.
51. Leder SB, Ross DA. Incidence of vocal fold immobility in patients with
dysphagia. Dysphagia 2005;20(2):163–7 [discussion: 168–9].
52. Bhattacharyya N, Kotz T, Shapiro J. The effect of bolus consistency on
dysphagia in unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2003;129(6):632–6.
53. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health
Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring phys-
ical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31(3):247–63.
54. Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, et al. The Voice Handicap Index (VHI):
development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;6(3):66–70.
55. Gliklich RE, Glovsky RM, Montgomery WW. Validation of a voice outcome survey
for unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;120(2):
153–8.
56. Spector BC, Netterville JL, Billante C, et al. Quality-of-life assessment in patients
with unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;125(3):
176–82.
57. Hogikyan ND, Wodchis WP, Terrell JE, et al. Voice-related quality of life
(V-RQOL) following type I thyroplasty for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Voice
2000;14(3):378–86.
58. Billante CR, Spector B, Hudson M, et al. Voice outcome following thyroplasty
in patients with cancer-related vocal fold paralysis. Auris Nasus Larynx 2001;
28(4):315–21.
59. Wang W, Chen D, Chen S, et al. Laryngeal reinnervation using ansa cervicalis
for thyroid surgery-related unilateral vocal fold paralysis: a long-term outcome
analysis of 237 cases. PLoS One 2011;6(4):e19128.
60. Stojadinovic A, Henry LR, Howard RS, et al. Prospective trial of voice outcomes
after thyroidectomy: evaluation of patient-reported and clinician-determined
voice assessments in identifying postthyroidectomy dysphonia. Surgery 2008;
143(6):732–42.
61. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Ito M. When and why listeners disagree in voice quality
assessment tasks. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;122(4):2354–64.
62. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Sources of listener disagreement in voice quality assess-
ment. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;108(4):1867–76.
63. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K. Listener experience and perception of voice
quality. J Speech Hear Res 1990;33(1):103–15.
64. Eadie T, Sroka A, Wright DR, et al. Does knowledge of medical diagnosis bias
auditory-perceptual judgments of dysphonia? J Voice 2011;25(4):420–9.
65. Eadie TL, Kapsner M, Rosenzweig J, et al. The role of experience on judgments
of dysphonia. J Voice 2010;24(5):564–73.
66. Karnell MP, Melton SD, Childes JM, et al. Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS
and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice
disorders. J Voice 2007;21(5):576–90.
67. Behrman A. Evidence-based treatment of paralytic dysphonia: making sense of
outcomes and efficacy data. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2004;37(1):75–104, vi.
68. Little MA, Costello DA, Harries ML. Objective dysphonia quantification in vocal
fold paralysis: comparing nonlinear with classical measures. J Voice 2011;25(1):
21–31.
69. Colton RH, Paseman A, Kelley RT, et al. Spectral moment analysis of unilateral
vocal fold paralysis. J Voice 2011;25(3):330–6.
70. Balasubramanium RK, Bhat JS, Fahim S 3rd, et al. Cepstral analysis of voice in
unilateral adductor vocal fold palsy. J Voice 2011;25(3):326–9.
71. Woodson GE. Configuration of the glottis in laryngeal paralysis. I: Clinical study.
Laryngoscope 1993;103(11 Pt 1):1227–34.
72. Hiramatsu H, Tokashiki R, Nakamura M, et al. Characterization of arytenoid
vertical displacement in unilateral vocal fold paralysis by three-dimensional
computed tomography. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266(1):97–104.
73. Steffen N, Vieira VP, Yazaki RK, et al. Modifications of vestibular fold shape from
respiration to phonation in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Voice 2011;25(1):
111–3.
74. Harries ML, Morrison M. The role of stroboscopy in the management of a patient
with a unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Laryngol Otol 1996;110(2):141–3.
75. Merati AL, Halum SL, Smith TL. Diagnostic testing for vocal fold paralysis:
survey of practice and evidence-based medicine review. Laryngoscope 2006;
116(9):1539–52.
76. Song SW, Jun BC, Cho KJ, et al. CT evaluation of vocal cord paralysis due to
thoracic diseases: a 10-year retrospective study. Yonsei Med J 2011;52(5):831–7.
77. Glazer HS, Aronberg DJ, Lee JK, et al. Extralaryngeal causes of vocal cord
paralysis: CT evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983;141(3):527–31.
78. Liu AY, Yousem DM, Chalian AA, et al. Economic consequences of diagnostic
imaging for vocal cord paralysis. Acad Radiol 2001;8(2):137–48.
79. Altman JS, Benninger MS. The evaluation of unilateral vocal fold immobility: is
chest X-ray enough? J Voice 1997;11(3):364–7.
80. Wang CP, Chen TC, Lou PJ, et al. Neck ultrasonography for the evaluation of the
etiology of adult unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Head Neck 2012;34(5):643–8.
81. Robinson S, Pitkaranta A. Radiology findings in adult patients with vocal fold
paralysis. Clinical Radiology 2006;61(10):863–7.
82. Heller MT, Meltzer CC, Fukui MB, et al. Superphysiologic FDG uptake in the non-
paralyzed vocal cord. Resolution of a false-positive PET result with combined
PET-CT imaging. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3(5):207–11.
83. Kamel EM, Goerres GW, Burger C, et al. Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in
patients with lung cancer: detection with PET-CT image fusion – report of six
cases. Radiology 2002;224(1):153–6.
84. Yeretsian RA, Blodgett TM, Branstetter BF 4th, et al. Teflon-induced granuloma:
a false-positive finding with PET resolved with combined PET and CT. AJNR Am
J Neuroradiol 2003;24(6):1164–6.
85. Tessonnier L, Fakhry N, Taieb D, et al. False-positive finding on FDG-PET/CT
after injectable elastomere implant (Vox implant) for vocal cord paralysis. Otolar-
86. Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 2008;
81(965):362–78.
87. Halum SL, Patel N, Smith TL, et al. Laryngeal electromyography for adult unilat-
eral vocal fold immobility: a survey of the American Broncho-Esophagological
Association. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2005;114(6):425–8.
88. Blitzer A, Crumley RL, Dailey SH, et al. Recommendations of the Neurolaryngol-
ogy Study Group on laryngeal electromyography. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2009;140(6):782–93.
89. Rickert SM, Childs LF, Carey BT, et al. Laryngeal electromyography for prognosis
of vocal fold palsy: a meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2012;122(1):158–61.
90. Statham MM, Rosen CA, Nandedkar SD, et al. Quantitative laryngeal electromy-
ography: turns and amplitude analysis. Laryngoscope 2010;120(10):2036–41.
91. Statham MM, Rosen CA, Smith LJ, et al. Electromyographic laryngeal synkinesis
alters prognosis in vocal fold paralysis. Laryngoscope 2010;120(2):285–90.
92. Peterson KL, Fenn J. Treatment of dysphagia and dysphonia following skull
base surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2005;38(4):809–17, xi.
93. D’Alatri L, Galla S, Rigante M, et al. Role of early voice therapy in patients
affected by unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122(9):936–41.
94. Heuer RJ, Thayer Sataloff R, Emerich K, et al. Unilateral recurrent laryngeal
nerve paralysis: the importance of “preoperative” voice therapy. J Voice 1997;
11(1):88–94.
95. Mattioli F, Bergamini G, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, et al. The role of early voice therapy
in the incidence of motility recovery in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Logoped
Phoniatr Vocol 2011;36(1):40–7.
96. Kelchner LN, Stemple JC, Gerdeman E, et al. Etiology, pathophysiology, treat-
ment choices, and voice results for unilateral adductor vocal fold paralysis:
a 3-year retrospective. J Voice 1999;13(4):592–601.
97. Schindler A, Bottero A, Capaccio P, et al. Vocal improvement after voice therapy
in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Voice 2008;22(1):113–8.
98. Crumley RL. Selective reinnervation of vocal cord adductors in unilateral vocal
cord paralysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1984;93(4 Pt 1):351–6.
99. Gacek M, Gacek RR. Cricoarytenoid joint mobility after chronic vocal cord paral-
ysis. Laryngoscope 1996;106(12 Pt 1):1528–30.
100. Colman MF, Schwartz I. The effect of vocal cord paralysis on the cricoarytenoid
joint. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1981;89(3 Pt 1):419–22.
101. Sulica L, Rosen CA, Postma GN, et al. Current practice in injection augmenta-
tion of the vocal folds: indications, treatment principles, techniques, and compli-
cations. Laryngoscope 2010;120(2):319–25.
102. Mau T, Weinheimer KT. Three-dimensional arytenoid movement induced by
vocal fold injections. Laryngoscope 2010;120(8):1563–8.
103. Shin JL, Hartnick CJ, Randolph GW, editors. Evidence-based otolaryngology.
New York: Springer; 2008.
104. Hertegard S, Hallen L, Laurent C, et al. Cross-linked hyaluronan used as
augmentation substance for treatment of glottal insufficiency: safety aspects
and vocal fold function. Laryngoscope 2002;112:2211–9.
105. Hertegard S, Hallen L, Laurent C, et al. Cross-linked hyaluronan versus collagen
for injection treatment of glottal insufficiency: 2-year follow-up. Acta Otolaryngol
2004;124:1208–14.
106. Dedo HH, Carlsoo B. Histologic evaluation of Teflon granulomas of human vocal
cords. A light and electron microscopic study. Acta Otolaryngol 1982;93(5–6):
475–84.
107. Ossoff RH, Koriwchak MJ, Netterville JL, et al. Difficulties in endoscopic removal
of Teflon granulomas of the vocal fold. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993;102(6):
405–12.
108. Nakayama M, Ford CN, Bless DM. Teflon vocal fold augmentation: failures
and management in 28 cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993;109(3 Pt 1):
493–8.
109. Kasperbauer JL, Slavit DH, Maragos NE. Teflon granulomas and overinjection of
Teflon: a therapeutic challenge for the otorhinolaryngologist. Ann Otol Rhinol
Laryngol 1993;102(10):748–51.
110. Schramm VL, May M, Lavorato AS. Gelfoam paste injection for vocal cord
paralysis: temporary rehabilitation of glottic incompetence. Laryngoscope
1978;88(8 Pt 1):1268–73.
111. O’Leary MA, Grillone GA. Injection laryngoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am
2006;39(1):43–54.
112. Lau DP, Lee GA, Wong SM, et al. Injection laryngoplasty with hyaluronic acid for
unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Randomized controlled trial comparing two
different particle sizes. J Voice 2010;24(1):113–8.
113. Rosen CA, Gartner-Schmidt J, Casiano R, et al. Vocal fold augmentation
with calcium hydroxylapatite: twelve-month report. Laryngoscope 2009;119(5):
1033–41.
114. Kwon TK, Rosen CA, Gartner-Schmidt J. Preliminary results of a new temporary
vocal fold injection material. J Voice 2005;19(4):668–73.
115. Milstein CF, Akst LM, Hicks MD, et al. Long-term effects of micronized Alloderm
injection for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Laryngoscope 2005;115(9):1691–6.
116. Tan M, Woo P. Injection laryngoplasty with micronized dermis: a 10-year expe-
rience with 381 injections in 344 patients. Laryngoscope 2010;120(12):2460–6.
117. Mikaelian DO, Lowry LD, Sataloff RT. Lipoinjection for unilateral vocal cord paral-
ysis. Laryngoscope 1991;101(5):465–8.
118. McCulloch TM, Andrews BT, Hoffman HT, et al. Long-term follow-up of fat
injection laryngoplasty for unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Laryngoscope 2002;
112(7 Pt 1):1235–8.
119. Reijonen P, Tervonen H, Harinen K, et al. Long-term results of autologous fascia
in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266(8):1273–8.
120. Reijonen P, Lehikoinen-Soderlund S, Rihkanen H. Results of fascial augmenta-
tion in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111(6):
523–9.
121. Anderson TD, Sataloff RT. Complications of collagen injection of the vocal fold:
report of several unusual cases and review of the literature. J Voice 2004;18(3):
392–7.
122. Ford CN, Bless DM. Clinical experience with injectable collagen for vocal fold
augmentation. Laryngoscope 1986;96(8):863–9.
123. Bock JM, Lee JH, Robinson RA, et al. Migration of Cymetra after vocal fold injec-
tion for laryngeal paralysis. Laryngoscope 2007;117(12):2251–4.
124. Zapanta PE, Bielamowicz SA. Laryngeal abscess after injection laryngoplasty
with micronized AlloDerm. Laryngoscope 2004;114(9):1522–4.
125. Arviso LC, Johns MM 3rd, Mathison CC, et al. Long-term outcomes of injection
laryngoplasty in patients with potentially recoverable vocal fold paralysis. Laryn-
goscope 2010;120(11):2237–40.
126. Bhattacharyya N, Batirel H, Swanson SJ. Improved outcomes with early vocal
fold medialization for vocal fold paralysis after thoracic surgery. Auris Nasus
Larynx 2003;30(1):71–5.
127. Friedman AD, Burns JA, Heaton JT, et al. Early versus late injection medializa-
tion for unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Laryngoscope 2010;120(10):2042–6.
128. Yung KC, Likhterov I, Courey MS. Effect of temporary vocal fold injection medi-
alization on the rate of permanent medialization laryngoplasty in unilateral vocal
fold paralysis patients. Laryngoscope 2011;121(10):2191–4.
129. Payr E. Plastik am Schildknorpel zur Behebung der Folgen einseitiger Stim-
mbanclahmung. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 1915;43:1265–70 [in
German].
130. Isshiki N, Okamura H, Ishikawa T. Thyroplasty type I (lateral compression) for
dysphonia due to vocal cord paralysis or atrophy. Acta Otolaryngol 1975;
80(5–6):465–73.
131. Isshiki N, Taira T, Kojima H, et al. Recent modifications in thyroplasty type I. Ann
Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98(10):777–9.
132. Zhao X, Roth K, Fung K. Type I thyroplasty: risk stratification approach to inpa-
tient versus outpatient postoperative management. J Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2010;39(6):757–61.
133. Bray D, Young JP, Harries ML. Complications after type one thyroplasty: is day-
case surgery feasible? J Laryngol Otol 2008;122(7):715–8.
134. van Ardenne N, Vanderwegen J, Van Nuffelen G, et al. Medialization thyroplasty:
vocal outcome of silicone and titanium implant. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;
268(1):101–7.
135. Storck C, Fischer C, Cecon M, et al. Hydroxyapatite versus titanium implant:
comparison of the functional outcome after vocal fold medialization in unilateral
recurrent nerve paralysis. Head Neck 2010;32(12):1605–12.
136. Lundy DS, Casiano RR, Xue JW. Can maximum phonation time predict voice
outcome after thyroplasty type I? Laryngoscope 2004;114(8):1447–54.
137. Isshiki N, Tanabe M, Sawada M. Arytenoid adduction for unilateral vocal cord
paralysis. Arch Otolaryngol 1978;104(10):555–8.
138. Zeitels SM, Hochman I, Hillman RE. Adduction arytenopexy: a new procedure
for paralytic dysphonia with implications for implant medialization. Ann Otol Rhi-
nol Laryngol Suppl 1998;173:2–24.
139. Thakar A, Sikka K, Verma R, et al. Cricothyroid approximation for voice and
swallowing rehabilitation of high vagal paralysis secondary to skull base
neoplasms. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011;268(11):1611–6.
140. Li AJ, Johns MM, Jackson-Menaldi C, et al. Glottic closure patterns: type I thy-
roplasty versus type I thyroplasty with arytenoid adduction. J Voice 2011;25(3):
259–64.
141. Franco RA, Andrus JG. Aerodynamic and acoustic characteristics of voice
before and after adduction arytenopexy and medialization laryngoplasty with
GORE-TEX in patients with unilateral vocal fold immobility. J Voice 2009;23(2):
261–7.
142. McNamar J, Montequin DW, Welham NV, et al. Aerodynamic, acoustic, and
vibratory comparison of arytenoid adduction and adduction arytenopexy. Laryn-
goscope 2008;118(3):552–8.
143. Abraham MT, Gonen M, Kraus DH. Complications of type I thyroplasty and
arytenoid adduction. Laryngoscope 2001;111(8):1322–9.
144. Senkal HA, Yilmaz T. Type I thyroplasty revision 1 year after a window was mistak-
enly created on the cricoid cartilage. Ear Nose Throat J 2010;89(5):E14–6.
145. Woo P, Pearl AW, Hsiung MW, et al. Failed medialization laryngoplasty: manage-
ment by revision surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;124(6):615–21.
146. Rosen CA. Complications of phonosurgery: results of a national survey. Laryn-
goscope 1998;108(11 Pt 1):1697–703.
147. Paniello RC, Dahm JD. Reversibility of medialization laryngoplasty. An experi-
mental study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1997;106(11):902–8.
148. Sasaki CT, Leder SB, Petcu L, et al. Longitudinal voice quality changes following
Isshiki thyroplasty type I: the Yale experience. Laryngoscope 1990;100(8):
849–52.
149. Leder SB, Sasaki CT. Long-term changes in vocal quality following Isshiki thyro-
plasty type I. Laryngoscope 1994;104(3 Pt 1):275–7.
150. Netterville JL, Stone RE, Luken ES, et al. Silastic medialization and arytenoid
adduction: the Vanderbilt experience. A review of 116 phonosurgical proce-
dures. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993;102(6):413–24.
151. Billante CR, Clary J, Childs P, et al. Voice gains following thyroplasty may
improve over time. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27(2):89–94.
152. Lundy DS, Casiano RR, Xue JW, et al. Thyroplasty type I: short- versus long-term
results. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122(4):533–6.
153. Gray SD, Barkmeier J, Jones D, et al. Vocal evaluation of thyroplastic surgery
in the treatment of unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Laryngoscope 1992;102(4):
415–21.
154. Dejonckere PH. Teflon injection and thyroplasty: objective and subjective
outcomes. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 1998;119(4):265–9.
155. Lundy DS, Casiano RR, McClinton ME, et al. Early results of transcutaneous
injection laryngoplasty with micronized acellular dermis versus type-I thyro-
plasty for glottic incompetence dysphonia due to unilateral vocal fold paralysis.
J Voice 2003;17(4):589–95.
156. Morgan JE, Zraick RI, Griffin AW, et al. Injection versus medialization laryngo-
plasty for the treatment of unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Laryngoscope 2007;
117(11):2068–74.
157. Tsuzuki T, Fukuda H, Fujioka T, et al. Voice prognosis after liquid and solid sili-
cone injection. Am J Otolaryngol 1991;12(3):165–9.
158. D’Antonio LL, Wigley TL, Zimmerman GJ. Quantitative measures of laryngeal
function following Teflon injection or thyroplasty type I. Laryngoscope 1995;
105(3 Pt 1):256–62.
159. Vinson KN, Zraick RI, Ragland FJ. Injection versus medialization laryngoplasty
for the treatment of unilateral vocal fold paralysis: follow-up at six months. Laryn-
goscope 2010;120(9):1802–7.
160. Bhattacharyya N, Kotz T, Shapiro J. Dysphagia and aspiration with unilateral
vocal cord immobility: incidence, characterization, and response to surgical
treatment. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111(8):672–9.
161. Nayak VK, Bhattacharyya N, Kotz T, et al. Patterns of swallowing failure following
medialization in unilateral vocal fold immobility. Laryngoscope 2002;112(10):
1840–4.
162. Hoffman MR, Witt RE, Chapin WJ, et al. Multiparameter comparison of injection
laryngoplasty, medialization laryngoplasty, and arytenoid adduction in an ex-
cised larynx model. Laryngoscope 2010;120(4):769–76.
163. McCulloch TM, Hoffman HT, Andrews BT, et al. Arytenoid adduction combined
with Gore-Tex medialization thyroplasty. Laryngoscope 2000;110(8):1306–11.
164. Thompson DM, Maragos NE, Edwards BW. The study of vocal fold vibratory
patterns in patients with unilateral vocal fold paralysis before and after type I
thyroplasty with or without arytenoid adduction. Laryngoscope 1995;105(5 Pt 1):
481–6.
165. Mortensen M, Carroll L, Woo P. Arytenoid adduction with medialization laryngo-
plasty versus injection or medialization laryngoplasty: the role of the arytenoido-
pexy. Laryngoscope 2009;119(4):827–31.
166. Tucker HM. Reinnervation of the paralyzed larynx: a review. Head Neck Surg
1979;1(3):235–42.
167. Paniello RC, Lee P, Dahm JD. Hypoglossal nerve transfer for laryngeal reinner-
vation: a preliminary study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999;108(3):239–44.
168. Tucker HM, Rusnov M. Laryngeal reinnervation for unilateral vocal cord paral-
ysis: long-term results. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1981;90(5 Pt 1):457–9.
169. Tucker HM. Long-term results of nerve-muscle pedicle reinnervation for laryn-
geal paralysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98(9):674–6.
170. Goding GS Jr. Nerve-muscle pedicle reinnervation of the paralyzed vocal cord.
Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1991;24(5):1239–52.
171. Hassan MM, Yumoto E, Baraka MA, et al. Arytenoid rotation and nerve-muscle
pedicle transfer in paralytic dysphonia. Laryngoscope 2011;121(5):1018–22.
172. Yumoto E, Sanuki T, Toya Y, et al. Nerve-muscle pedicle flap implantation
combined with arytenoid adduction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;
136(10):965–9.
173. Chhetri DK, Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, et al. Combined arytenoid adduction and
laryngeal reinnervation in the treatment of vocal fold paralysis. Laryngoscope
1999;109(12):1928–36.
174. Woo P, Mangaro M. Aberrant recurrent laryngeal nerve reinnervation as a cause
of stridor and laryngospasm. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2004;113(10):805–8.
175. Maronian NC, Robinson L, Waugh P, et al. A new electromyographic definition of
laryngeal synkinesis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2004;113(11):877–86.
176. Crumley RL. Laryngeal synkinesis revisited. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000;
109(4):365–71.
177. Tucker HM. Long-term preservation of voice improvement following surgical me-
dialization and reinnervation for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Voice 1999;
13(2):251–6.
178. Paniello RC, Edgar JD, Kallogjeri D, et al. Medialization versus reinnervation for
unilateral vocal fold paralysis: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Laryngo-
scope 2011;121(10):2172–9.
Otolaryngology Clinic of North
America: Evidence-Based Practice
Management of Hoarseness/Dysphonia
Jaime I. Chang, MDa, Scott E. Bevans, MD

b
,
Seth R. Schwartz, MD, MPHa,*
KEYWORDS
Dysphonia Hoarseness Evidence-based otolaryngology Laryngoscopy
Laryngostroboscopy Laryngeal imaging Laryngeal electromyography
KEY POINTS
The following points list the level of evidence as based on Oxford Center for Evidence-
Based Medicine. Additional critical points are provided and points here are expanded at
the conclusion of this article.
The otolaryngologist must rule out malignancy in patients with persistent dysphonia
[Level 5].
Angled rigid endoscopy, although not as well tolerated, enhances diagnostic yield
[Level 4].
Laryngeal electromyography offers diagnostic and prognostic information in vocal fold
paralysis/paresis [Level 3a].
Some benign causes of dysphonia respond to voice therapy [Level 3].
Antibiotics are not useful for dysphonia, excepting specific bacterial infections of the
airway [Level 1a].
Targeted use of antireflux medications can be beneficial to control laryngeal inflamma-
tion and reflux symptoms [Level 1b-], but remains unproven as empiric therapy for iso-
lated dysphonia.
OVERVIEW
Hoarseness is a common patient complaint and can be the main symptom for a wide
range of medical problems. It can result from mild self-limited inflammation of the
All authors have nothing to disclose.

The opinions and assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and should
not be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of Defense or the
Department of the Army.
a
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA;
b
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Madigan Healthcare System, Tacoma, WA, USA
E-mail address: Seth.Schwartz@vmmc.org

1110 Chang et al
vocal folds or be an early sign of laryngeal cancer. Patients with mild or self-limited
hoarseness may never seek evaluation before resolution of symptoms; persistent
hoarseness often leads patients to seek evaluation. The role of the otolaryngologist
is generally to diagnose the underlying cause of the symptom of hoarseness and
subsequently to manage that condition.
Hoarseness is a common complaint, with an overall prevalence of nearly 30.0% in
adults, nearly 50.0% in elderly patients, and 3.9% to 23.0% in children.1–7 It is slightly
more common in women,1,8,9 and is considerably more common among certain
professions, such as telemarketers, aerobics instructors, and teachers, where the
prevalence may approach 60%.1–12 Regardless of the underlying diagnosis, patients
with hoarseness may suffer social isolation, depression, and reduction in quality of
life.1,13–16 Hoarseness and the conditions that cause it are a common cause of time
lost from work,1,9,12 and has been estimated to cost approximately $2.5 billion in
lost wages.17
Although patients frequently complain of hoarseness, it is a nonspecific term for
a symptom and not a diagnosis. Clinical evaluation frequently reveals that patients
have dysphonia, which is an alteration in voice quality that negatively affects the
patient’s social or professional communication.
Furthermore, dysphonia may be the presenting symptom of a serious underlying
condition necessitating urgent or emergent management. The first task of the otolar-
yngologist is to determine if the dysphonia reflects a life-threatening condition or if it
causes a decrement in quality of life or an impediment to professional function.
Non–life-threatening causes of dysphonia still represent a significant health care
burden, as stated previously, and can have a major impact on a patient’s life. Accord-
ingly, optimal management of these patients represents a large quality-improvement
opportunity. A recently published clinical practice guideline was produced by the
American Academy of Otolaryngology to address these issues.18
This article is not a clinical practice guideline. It reviews the evidence related to the
evaluation of a patient with dysphonia and to the evidence for management of some of
the common underlying problems that lead to the condition. Specifically, we review
the evidence for some common diagnostic studies used in the evaluation of patients
presenting with hoarseness (laryngoscopy/stroboscopy, imaging, and electromyo-
graphic testing). With regard to management, the myriad diagnoses that can produce
dysphonia preclude a comprehensive discussion of the management of each etiology.
Clearly, an evidence-based review of the management of laryngeal cancer is beyond
the scope of this article. Accordingly, we selectively review the evidence behind inter-
ventions for several leading causes of dysphonia.
In evaluating dysphonia, a thorough history and head and neck examination allow the
clinician to assess the degree of morbidity, to determine possible etiologies, and to
target the remainder of the evaluation and planning of appropriate management.
Despite the essential role of performing a thorough history and head and neck exam-
ination, there is a paucity of validated studies to lend evidentiary support for the impor-
tance of their role in the diagnosis and management of the underlying etiologies for
dysphonia, excepting visualization of the larynx, which is addressed next. Nonethe-
less, all of the interventions discussed in this article are based on a clinical assessment
of the severity of the suspected underlying etiology (eg, impending airway obstruction,
malignancy) and the implications of impairment (eg, occupational impact for those
patients who use their voices professionally). This article defers further discussion of
Management of Hoarseness/Dysphonia 1111
these aspects of the clinical assessment of dysphonia to the body of expert opinion
already published on this topic.
The remainder of this section focuses on the evidence regarding adjunctive mea-
sures beyond the history and general head and neck examination. This section divides
these options into (1) visualization of the vocal folds, (2) diagnostic testing, and (3)
measurements of the degree of dysphonia.
Visualization of the Larynx

Laryngoscopy
Visualization of the larynx is critical in any assessment of a patient with dysphonia.19
Laryngoscopy uses optics and light to allow the clinician to visualize the laryngeal
structures.19,20 Traditionally, the larynx has been visualized in the awake clinic patient
indirectly using a laryngeal mirror. Although the view may be adequate with a laryngeal
mirror, functional examination can be limited, and full visualization may be limited.
With the development of optics and associated technologies, laryngoscopy can be
performed with a variety of endoscopes: rigid angled laryngoscopes, flexible fiberop-
tic laryngoscopes, and flexible distal chip laryngoscopes. Video cameras can also be
added for further magnification and recording.
More than 20 years ago, a prospective, nonrandomized trial performed by Barker
and Dort21 evaluated the ability to complete either a mirror or rigid endoscopic exam-
ination. In the patients who went on to have direct laryngoscopy, Barker and Dort21
evaluated the accuracy of findings between the 2 techniques. Among the 100 patients
they tested, nearly half of patients could not tolerate mirror evaluation. More than 80%
tolerated a rigid endoscopic examination. Fewer than 30% underwent direct laryngos-
copy, and among them, both examination techniques proved largely accurate, with
rigid endoscopic techniques having zero false-negative evaluations.21 With the signif-
icant advances made in endoscopic technology since that report, a 2009 study of 43
patients similarly compared rigid laryngoscopy using a 30 endoscope to mirror exam-
ination and showed statistically significant improvements in patient comfort with less
gagging (80% preferred rigid endoscopy), improved visualization of laryngeal struc-
tures by physicians, and the ability to display results of endoscopic evaluation for
patients to see simultaneously.22 By comparison, a single study has suggested that
flexible fiberoptic visualization offers decreased patient discomfort relative to rigid
endoscopy (evidenced by cardiovascular response to direct vs fiberoptic laryngos-
copy in patients emerging from anesthesia following thyroidectomy) and improved
visualization.23
Uncontrolled, observational studies, and anecdotal and expert opinion suggest
that the use of fiberoptic visualization often affords the ability to palpate the glottis
and supraglottis for assessment of sensory function, allows for improved dynamic
assessments, and may provide some improved visualization of the subglottic
region.24–28 This must be weighed against good evidence that suggests image
quality is improved with the use of rigid endoscopes, however. A randomized
case-controlled direct comparison among the 3 most frequently used methods (flex-
ible fiberoptic endoscopes, distal chip flexible endoscopes, and rigid angled endo-
scopes) in 2008 showed that although flexible fiberoptic endoscopes provide the
most cost-effective option for visualizing the larynx, they provided less information
than rigid visualization in nearly one-quarter of patients, most notably during
stroboscopy.25
Although both rigid and flexible endoscopes have specific strengths and weakness,
one of the chief advantages of either method over mirror laryngoscopy is the simulta-
neous use of magnification, video recording, and stroboscopy.
1112 Chang et al
Laryngostroboscopy
Although laryngoscopy alone can visualize anatomic abnormalities, such as masses
and impaired mobility of the vocal folds, it cannot provide visualization of the mucosal
vibration (the source of the voice). Under constant illumination, the vocal folds vibrate
at a much higher frequency than the human eye can discern. Addition of a strobo-
scopic light source allows the viewer to discriminate the motion of the vibratory
edge of the vocal folds in “slow motion.”29
In comparison with laryngoscopy alone, stroboscopy improves diagnostic yield, as
demonstrated in several observational studies over the past 30 years. In 1991, Sataloff
and colleagues30 reported the largest of these studies, assessing nearly 1900 patients
over a 4-year period. Additional diagnoses were discovered in 29% of patients, and
the prestrobe diagnoses were found to be inaccurate in 18% of patients.30 Subse-
quent publication of 292 prospectively identified patients who underwent a similar
protocol involving initial laryngoscopy followed by stroboscopy showed similar re-
sults, with stroboscopy altering the diagnosis and treatment outcome in 14% of the
patients.31 A small (40 patients) retrospective review of stroboscopy use in the setting
of laryngeal trauma found that even after computed tomography (CT) and laryngos-
copy, stroboscopic evaluation replaced the need for direct laryngoscopy to evaluate
mucosal integrity and vocal fold function in several patients. Avoidance of secondary
trauma of operative direct laryngoscopy led to earlier discharge for matched grades of
laryngeal injury.32
A 2010 retrospective review of pediatric patients with unresolved dysphonia after
prior endoscopy and treatment found the addition of stroboscopy (both rigid and flex-
ible) identified a new diagnosis that resulted in additional therapy in nearly all
patients.33
Other Techniques to Visualize Vocal Fold Vibration

In addition to stroboscopy, there are several newer technologies, such as videoky-
mography, photoglottography, and high-speed digital imaging (HDSI), that have
been developed but are not as widely available. A 252-patient prospective trial
comparing stroboscopy, in particular, to HDSI (which offers the advantage of evalu-
ating the full mucosal wave with increased capture rates and slowed playback for
more complete evaluation of the vibratory cycle) showed that a definitive diagnosis
was made in all patients in whom a diagnosis was unclear using stroboscopy alone
(63% of total).34 Although these developing technologies may provide increased diag-
nostic ability, they are as yet unproven and costly.34–37
Direct laryngoscopy
Operative direct laryngoscopy (with or without magnification) as a diagnostic tool may
assist in establishing a diagnosis for dysphonia in patients with certain laryngoscopic
findings (eg, a mass lesion). It may also be indicated in patients in whom awake visu-
alization of the larynx cannot be achieved. Operative direct laryngoscopy offers the
additional benefit of palpation of the cricoarytenoid joint and the mucosa of the vocal
folds, as well as the opportunity for diagnostic biopsy. Phonomicrosurgical interven-
tion can also be done concurrently with diagnosis in selected circumstances.
Although dynamic evaluation in the sedated patient is limited, multiple retrospective
reviews suggest that the improved visualization provided by operative positioning,
palpation, magnification, and improved depth perception of binocular microscopy
results in alternate or additional diagnoses. Poels and colleagues38 found that, despite
preoperative stroboscopy, alternate diagnoses were made in 36% of the 221 patients
who underwent direct laryngoscopy. An additional 31% of patients had additional
lesions (largely intracordal) discovered at the time of surgery.8 A more recent review of
100 patients at another tertiary care center identified additional lesions (often bilateral)
in 9% of patients. Nearly half of these patients had a change in treatment plans after
the altered diagnosis.39
Diagnostic Testing for Dysphonia

Although history, physical examination, and visualizing of the larynx are generally
adequate to evaluate a patient with dysphonia, further diagnostic testing is indicated
in selected patients.
Laryngeal electromyography
Laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) assesses the electrical activity and the functional
status of the innervation to the targeted laryngeal muscles (typically cricothyroid, thy-
roarytenoid, and often posterior cricoarytenoid muscles).
A 2005 study of the practices of laryngologists who belong to the American
Broncho-Esphogological Association indicated that among respondents, 75% used
LEMG to confirm or diagnose unilateral vocal fold immobility.40 Evidence to support
its use in a purely diagnostic capacity is largely of a nonrandomized, retrospective
nature, however. To address this issue specifically, the Neurolaryngology Study Group
convened a multidisciplinary panel to examine the evidence for LEMG in diagnosis
and prognosis. The diagnostic accuracy was based on multiple small studies and
one large unblinded retrospective study, which confirmed the neurologic basis of
vocal fold paresis or paralysis in 83% to 92% of cases and was able to contrast neuro-
logic impairment with cricoarytenoid motion disorders in the remaining patients (2%–
12%).41 One of the larger studies reviewed reported that LEMG led to a change in the
type of imaging performed in 11% of patients and altered the timing or type of surgical
intervention in another 40% of patients.42
Meyer and Hillel43 published an updated review of the literature in 2009 of primarily
level IV evidence. They identified a blinded study from Philadelphia44 that reported
increased sensitivity for identification of a paretic nerve from 64% to 86%. Another
reviewed study reported that LEMG altered the timing or choice of therapy in nearly
50% of patients.45 More recent studies (level III evidence) compared the efficacy of
LEMG to laryngoscopy for diagnosis of neurologic impairment.46–48 Sataloff and
colleagues46 reported that LEMG results corroborated laryngoscopic diagnosis in
95% of patients (661 of 689), and identified neurologic abnormality in 22% (14 of 62)
without a prior diagnosis. Importantly, Gavazzoni and colleagues48 caution that no
single electrophysiologic parameter alone confers a high sensitivity (although nearly
all carried greater than 90% specificity) and adds that duration since onset of impair-
ment decreases the diagnostic certainty.
Hydman and colleagues49 studied LEMG as a prognostic indicator in recurrent
laryngeal nerve injury in 15 patients with vocal fold paresis 2 to 3 weeks after iatrogenic
injury but anatomically intact recurrent laryngeal nerves. Patients with axonal injury
based on LEMG findings had 50% significantly worsened functional and videostrobo-
scopic outcomes.
Radiographic imaging
Although most patients with dysphonia do not require imaging, abnormalities in struc-
ture of the larynx or mobility of the vocal folds may prompt additional investigation with
radiographic imaging. Imaging may be useful in assessing the extent of mass lesions.
In malignancy, imaging allows assessment of regional lymphatic involvement, as well
as defining the extent of the mass. CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be
1114 Chang et al
used to assess for invasion of the laryngeal cartilage, which offers prognostic informa-
tion for staging of laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer.50–52 MRI is highly sensitive
for identifying cartilage invasion, but it is less specific than CT owing to increased
signal patterns often caused by inflammation.
Imaging is also indicated if initial workup of dysphonia reveals a paralyzed vocal fold
without a known cause.52 Historically, a chest radiograph and/or a neck CT with
contrast was used to identify vascular anomalies or mass lesions.50–53 In recent years,
radiographs have become extraneous, as both positive and negative results lead to
CT imaging.52,53 In a recent prospective study by El Badawey and colleagues53 of
86 patients presenting with vocal cord palsy, 36% had positive CT findings, which
correlated with the cause for immobility. Most of these were suspicious for malignancy
in the lungs or mediastinum.
Skull-base imaging with MRI is indicated in vocal fold paresis with other cranial
nerve palsies. Principally, expert opinion supports its use in diagnosing skull base
or jugular foramen neoplasm (glomus tumors, schwannomas, and so forth) or meta-
static disease responsible for multiple lower cranial nerve palsies.51,52,55 Two studies
of skull base invasion in nasopharyngeal carcinoma found MRI to be more sensitive
than CT for identifying bony invasion.56,57 Several investigators have found that MRI
does not add additional sensitivity to CT in terms of identifying the presence of
malignancy.54,55,58
Dysphonia, and specifically vocal fold paresis, can result from intracranial pro-
cesses as well. MRI and CT may be warranted if signs or symptoms concerning for
stroke warrant intracranial imaging to evaluate for ischemic or hemorrhagic sources.
Clearly, for patients with pacemakers or metallic implants, MRI may be contraindi-
cated.58 In children with vocal fold palsy, one must balance the risk of radiation expo-
sure with CT to the possible need for sedation with MRI.59 The actual dose of radiation
received by the thyroid and its long-term effect are still uncertain.59,60 The risk of MRI
is an approximately 5% chance of an episode of hypoxia during the required seda-
tion.61–63 In patients with intravenous contrast allergies, gadolinium-enhanced MRI
is likely the safer study.
Measurements of Degree of Dysphonia

An additional component of assessing dysphonia is the perceptual component, from
either the patient perspective or the clinician perspective. Both attempt to quantify the
severity of the voice impairment.
Self-rated assessments
Several commonly used perceptual rating systems are intended to better characterize
dysphonia and to assess the negative impact of voice disturbance on a patient’s
quality of life. The more widely known among them are the 30-question Voice Hand-
icap Index (VHI),64 with its revised, streamlined 10-question version (VHI-10),16 and the
Voice-Related Quality of Life survey (V-RQOL).65 In severe voice disorders, patient
ratings of severity and quality of life impact were highly correlated on each of the 3
instruments.65,66,67 Recent studies suggest this correlation persists even in mild to
moderately severe dysphonia.67
Although scores may be sensitive to change within each individual subject, the
scores may be poorly correlated with the morbidity of the underlying disease process
or objective measures of voice disorder. Studies validating use in other languages find
that spasmodic dysphonia and functional disorders tend to produce worse ratings
than nonbenign pathologies.68,69 A cross-sectional case-controlled survey of patients
who underwent total laryngectomy showed a distribution of scores generally
equivalent to or better than Chinese patients with benign voice disorders (39–48 vs
38–70).68,70–72 Additionally, a recent study of almost 500 public school teachers in
Brazil using the VHI-10 showed little correlation between teacher ratings of impairment
and quality of life and objectively identified voice disorders.72
Clinician-rated measures
Two clinician-rated scales are commonly used to assess the acoustic quality and
severity of voice disorders. The GRBAS (overall grade [G], roughness [R], breathiness
[B], asthenia-weakness [A], and strain [S]) is a clinician-based 0-point to 3-point
graded assessment of quality and severity of voice disorder.69 Although seemingly
valid, some concerns exist about the use of this measure.73
The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) is another
provider-rated system developed by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Asso-
ciation.74,75 It is a standardized measure of roughness, breathiness, strain, pitch, and
loudness. Although it may have slightly better interrater reliability than the GRBAS, it is
still subject to the experience of the rater76 and may be biased by lack of blinding of
the assessor.77
Although these tools allow for an objective quantification of the severity of voice
disorders, no evidence has demonstrated that they influence the diagnosis or treat-
ment of patients who present with dysphonia. Without data to suggest additional diag-
nostic or treatment benefit, these tools may be useful for research purposes and
communication among clinicians, but use in clinical practice is at the discretion of
the treating clinician.
EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT OF DYSPHONIA
Management of dysphonia is entirely dependent on its underlying cause. A complete

discussion regarding management of all underlying etiologies for dysphonia is beyond
the scope of this article. Specifically, dysphonia resulting from external laryngeal
trauma, post–endotracheal intubation trauma, postlaryngeal surgery, and laryngeal
cancer is not addressed. Additionally, patients with associated airway compromise
clearly need urgent management of the airway, which is a topic in itself. This section
addresses management of dysphonia associated with laryngeal inflammation,
reduced vocal fold mobility, benign vocal fold lesions, and functional voice disorders.
Categories of treatment can be divided into voice therapy, medical therapy, and
surgical therapy. Oftentimes, a combination of treatment methods is necessary.
Voice Therapy
The approaches for voice therapy are often divided into 3 main categories: hygienic
(improving behaviors that can lead to injury of the vocal folds), symptomatic (targeting
treatment of abnormal voice quality in the resulting phonated voice), and physiologic
(optimizing voice production). Thomas and Stemple conducted a systematic review
of the efficacy of voice therapy that revealed the best support for physiologic
approaches (randomized and other controlled trials), mixed support in hygienic
approaches (controlled trials), and less strong data for symptomatic approaches
(observational studies).77 These approaches are used in the management of voice
disorders discussed in the following sections.
Laryngeal inflammation
Laryngeal inflammation can occur as a result of infectious, irritant (allergies, reflux, air-
borne irritants), or traumatic (phonotrauma and iatrogenic) etiologies. Medical manage-
ment of the irritants (such as infection, allergens, and reflux) is necessary to resolve the
1116 Chang et al
medical component of the inflammation. Voice therapy is used to improve vocal hygiene
to prevent further phonotrauma, to allow healing, and to prevent recurrence.77
Benign lesions
When an anatomic abnormality (such as vocal fold nodules, cysts, or polyps) interferes
with vocal fold vibration, voice therapy has 2 roles:
1. Training on voice production in the presence of the lesion may allow the patient to
meet voice needs without other interventions.
2. Voice therapy may help to reduce vocal behaviors that caused the lesion and
consequently avoid worsening or recurrence of the lesion.
Voice therapy also plays a role perioperatively in cases in which voice therapy alone
cannot meet the patient’s voice demands.
The most studied benign lesions in the efficacy of voice therapy are vocal fold
nodules.78 A retrospective review of 26 patients over 6 years revealed either elimina-
tion and/or reduction of vocal fold nodules in more than 70% of the patients.79 More
than 80% of patients in this study had either normal voice or mild dysphonia after
therapy. Voice therapy is generally accepted as the primary modality of treatment in
patients with vocal fold nodules. A survey of members of the American Academy of
Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery revealed that 91% of respondents used
voice therapy first in vocal fold nodules. In other lesions, no statistical difference
existed between the use of voice therapy, medical therapy, or surgical intervention.80
Other than vocal fold nodules, very little literature is available that directly assesses
the management outcome of voice therapy in benign vocal fold lesions. One retro-
spective chart review of 57 patients with vocal fold polyps or cysts found complete
symptom resolution with voice therapy alone in nearly half of patients under study.81
Glottic insufficiency
Voice therapy is commonly used as an adjunct to surgical intervention for glottic insuf-
ficiency. The results have been mixed when used alone. Two prospective82,83 and 1
retrospective,84 uncontrolled study correlated early involvement of a speech therapist
with recovery of vocal fold mobility in cases of paralysis. Perceptual improvement (from
the patient’s perspective as well as blinded listeners) has been seen in patients who
have undergone voice therapy even when more objective measurements (maximum
phonation times, acoustic measures, and laryngeal images) do not reveal significant
improvement.85 On the other hand, a retrospective review of 275 patients with vocal
fold atrophy showed that treatment success with voice therapy was poor to moderately
poor based on patient perception of outcome measures by the VHI-10.86
Dysphonia in the setting of normal laryngeal tissue and mobility
Functional voice disorders (dysphonia in the absence of anatomic or physiologic
abnormalities of the laryngeal structures) often result from excess muscle tension of
intrinsic and extrinsic laryngeal muscles. Psychological and/or personality factors,
vocal misuse and abuse, and compensation for underlying disease can all lead to
this condition.87 Voice therapy may help these patients, but organic problems leading
to muscle tension dysphonia will still require concomitant medical or surgical
management.87
Medical Therapy
Steroids
Inflammation of the vocal fold mucosa may produce dysphonia by impairing nor-
mal vibration. Oral steroids have been used to counteract this inflammation and,
theoretically, allow the vocal fold mucosa to return to its normal vibratory state.
Although this may be fairly common in practice, no studies evaluating the role of
empiric steroid use for dysphonia were found in the literature. Very low quality
evidence does support their effectiveness for dysphonia associated with specific
diagnoses (case reports and case series):
Croup88
Allergies89,90
Lichen planus91
Autoimmune disorders, such as sarcoidosis,92,93 systemic lupus erythemato-
sus,94 pemphigus,95 and relapsing polychondritis96
Oral steroids are also commonly used in the setting of dysphonia with airway
compromise and in professional voice patients with acute laryngitis and professional
performance demands. Although these may be extreme circumstances justifying the
use of steroids, no evidence supporting their use in either of these settings was found
in the literature.
Steroids can also be delivered through direct injection to the laryngeal structures.
One prospective multicenter study of 115 patients evaluated the efficacy of percuta-
neous vocal fold injections in cases of benign vocal fold lesions97; 35% of patients had
complete resolution of symptoms, whereas 50% had partial improvement as
measured by objective and subjective parameters. No severe complications (including
vocal fold atrophy) were observed. Additional very low quality evidence in the form of
case reports and case series support steroid injections for the following conditions:
laryngeal relapsing polychondritis,98 laryngeal sarcoidosis,99,100 Reinke edema,101
vocal nodules or polyps,100,102,103 and vocal fold postoperative scar.100
Antibiotics
Antibiotics are an important therapeutic modality when a bacterial infection is present
and requires treatment. They are not effective in cases of viral laryngitis or upper respi-
ratory tract infections. A Cochrane review in 2007 found no benefit for the use of anti-
biotics in acute laryngitis (only 2 studies met inclusion criteria).104 When a bacterial
infection causing dysphonia is identified, then directed antibiotic therapy would be
appropriate.
Antireflux therapy
Laryngopharyngeal reflux can cause dysphonia when gastric reflux results in inflam-
mation of the laryngeal structures.105 Since Koufman’s research findings, medical
treatment with proton pump inhibitors has become commonplace in managing
dysphonia. Controversy remains regarding the appropriate use of antireflux medica-
tions, as side effects are better understood and efficacy has not been conclusively
demonstrated. A 2006 Cochrane systematic review of 302 studies did not find any
high-quality trials meeting the inclusion criteria to assess the effectiveness of antireflux
therapy for dysphonia.106
A few higher-quality studies have demonstrated effectiveness in treating reflux
symptoms and improving laryngeal inflammation. A randomized double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial with esomeprazole 20 mg twice a day for 3 months in patients
with laryngopharyngeal reflux found significant improvement in both symptoms and
laryngeal examination.107 Another prospective, double-blind study assessed the
empiric use of pantoprazole as a diagnostic tool for laryngopharyngeal reflux.108 In
this study, all patients were tested with 24-hour, double-probe pH monitors before
starting pantoprazole 40 mg twice a day. The study found that response to
1118 Chang et al
pantoprazole correlates with pH probe findings of reflux.109 The benefit of empiric anti-
reflux therapy for dysphonia in the absence of laryngeal findings and other clinical
symptoms of laryngopharyngeal reflux has not been proven.
Surgical Therapy
Benign laryngeal lesions
Lesions on the true vocal folds interfere with the vibratory mucosa and impair phona-
tion. Voice therapy is used initially, as described previously. Surgical intervention is
considered when voice therapy does not result in satisfactory voice production. In
2004, Johns and colleagues110 assessed the quality-of-life changes in 42 patients
who underwent endoscopic laryngeal microsurgery for true vocal fold cysts, polyps,
and scarring. VHI scores significantly decreased at 3 months after surgery (49.6 21
to 26.8 21, P<.001); the difference was most significant for vocal fold polyps and
cysts. No statistically significant improvement was found for patients who underwent
surgery for vocal fold scar.
Glottic incompetence
Glottic incompetence refers to incomplete closure of the vocal folds during phonation,
which results in a breathy, asthenic voice. Impaired glottic closure can occur with
reduced or absent mobility of the true vocal folds (vocal fold paresis and paralysis),
as well as from reduced vocal fold tissue bulk (vocal fold atrophy). Although voice
therapy is often used as first-line treatment, inadequate response to therapy may be
an indication for surgical intervention to medialize the vocal fold and improve glottic
closure.
Currently, no therapies restore active movement of the vocal folds. Passive, static
medialization occurs with a bulking agent, either by injection laryngoplasty or external
framework surgery. Two retrospective studies of selected patients from the same
institution (2007 and 2010) compared injection versus medialization laryngoplasty
for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. The initial study assessed 19 patients at an average
of 3 months postoperatively (range 1–9 months); the subsequent study assessed
those plus 15 additional patients at an average of 6.4 months postoperatively (range
1–24 months). These studies found voice improvements with both techniques with
no significant difference between groups.109,111
Although often considered a temporary fix while awaiting spontaneous improvement
in vocal fold mobility, injection laryngoplasty may be adequate treatment. A single-
institution, retrospective chart review over 4 years revealed that in 42 patients with
potentially recoverable unilateral vocal fold paralysis who underwent injection laryngo-
plasty, 29% required more definitive management. Seventy-one percent did not need
further intervention; they either recovered mobility or compensated adequately. These
patients had been followed for a median of 10.5 months (range 6–44 months).112 In
a retrospective chart review of 54 patients, those who had temporary injection medial-
ization were less likely to undergo permanent medialization than patients who opted for
observation or voice therapy (5/19 vs 23/35).113
A variety of materials have been used for injection laryngoplasty with varying ex-
pected durations of benefit. Studies of individual injectables have shown that injection
laryngoplasty is effective in improving the voice in patients with glottic insufficiency.
Several retrospective chart reviews and prospective case series of individual materials
have shown effectiveness of many different injectables:
Calcium hydroxylapatite114,115
Hyaluronic acid116
Micronized dermis117–121
Autologous fascia122
Autologous fat123,124
Polyacrylamide hydrogel125
Few studies compare materials directly. One prospective, randomized controlled

study of injection laryngoplasty with 2-year follow-up compared hyaluronic acid gel
to collagen.126 No significant difference was found between them, with both groups
achieving improved voice without long-term side effects. The choice of material
should be based on the clinical context (ie, short-term or long-term paralysis) and
the desired characteristics of the material.
These injections are being done in increasing numbers in the clinic setting. A large,
retrospective, multicenter study demonstrated a shift to more injections being per-
formed in the clinic setting with equally high success rates (99% vs 97%) and minimal
complications.127
Arytenoid adduction rotates the vocal process of the arytenoids medially to improve
posterior glottic closure. An evidence-based review in 2003 yielded only 3 studies
comparing medialization thyroplasty alone to medialization thyroplasty with arytenoid
adduction. No clear benefit was identified with the addition of arytenoid adduction.128
A more recent retrospective study using 3 blinded reviewers found no significant
difference in posterior glottic closure with the addition of arytenoid adduction to
thyroplasty.129
Reinnervation is another surgical option for paralyzed vocal folds. With reinnerva-
tion, patients gain tone within the intrinsic musculature, but not necessarily active
mobility. A multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial compared medialization
laryngoplasty to laryngeal reinnervation for unilateral vocal fold paralysis with
12-month follow-up.130 Each group showed significant improvement in voice (gauged
by untrained listeners, blinded speech pathologists, and patient report [by voice-
related quality of life]), but no significant between-group differences were found. A
subgroup analysis showed that patients younger than 52 years had more favorable
results with reinnervation procedures.
WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE TELLS US (THE BOTTOM LINE)
In patients presenting with dysphonia, visualization of the larynx is critical to establish-

ing the underlying cause of symptoms. Flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopy is well toler-
ated and allows a diagnosis in most patients. Rigid angled laryngoscopy, especially
with the addition of a stroboscopic light source, improves visualization and may allow
for diagnosis when not established by fiberoptic laryngoscopy. For more subtle find-
ings, laryngostroboscopy may alter the diagnosis. Operative laryngoscopy should be
reserved for patients in whom a biopsy is needed or a diagnosis was still not estab-
lished by the less invasive methods. LEMG is not routinely helpful as a first-line diag-
nostic test for dysphonia, but may offer additional diagnostic or prognostic information
in vocal fold paresis or paralysis. CT or MRI imaging can be useful in assessing the
extent of a mass lesion or identifying a cause of vocal fold paralysis if history and phys-
ical examination are unrevealing, but imaging is not useful in the initial workup of
dysphonia. The data do not conclusively recommend one study over another.
Management of dysphonia is entirely dependent on the underlying cause and many
of the subtleties of managing this myriad of complex conditions is beyond the scope of
this article. In brief, voice therapy can be effective as first-line therapy for some benign
lesions of the vocal folds (nodules in particular) and as an adjunct to medical or
surgical management if primary therapy is unsuccessful or an organic pathology is
1120 Chang et al
at play. Regarding medical therapy, the evidence does not support the routine use of
oral steroids for dysphonia, but expert opinion argues for their usefulness in certain
circumstances. Antibiotics similarly are not useful to treat dysphonia excepting rare
bacterial infections that may respond. Antireflux therapy is supported for patients
with symptoms of reflux or laryngeal changes associated with reflux but remains
unproven for empiric treatment of dysphonia in the absence of other symptoms or
physical findings (diagnostic therapy excepted). Low-quality data support the use of
surgery to manage several of the underlying conditions that can lead to dysphonia
(glottic insufficiency and certain benign lesions of the vocal folds).
CRITICAL POINTS
The otolaryngologist must rule out malignancy in patients with persistent dys-
phonia [Level 5]
Fiberoptic laryngoscopy allows for a diagnosis in many patients, but angled rigid
endoscopy, although not as well tolerated, enhances diagnostic yield [Level 4]
The addition of a stroboscopic light source increases the diagnostic accuracy
and sensitivity of laryngoscopy [Level 4]
LEMG offers diagnostic and prognostic information in vocal fold paralysis/
paresis [Level 3a]
Some benign causes of dysphonia will respond to voice therapy (laryngeal
inflammation, vocal fold nodules) [Level 3]
Oral steroids have a limited role in managing routine dysphonia [Level 4/5]
Antibiotics are not useful for dysphonia, excepting specific bacterial infections of
the airway [Level 1a]
Targeted use of antireflux medications can be beneficial to control laryngeal
inflammation and reflux symptoms [Level 1b-], but remains unproven as empiric
therapy for isolated dysphonia
Surgical therapy can improve voice outcomes in glottic insufficiency and
selected benign vocal fold lesions not resolving after voice therapy [Level 4]
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Al Merati, MD, for his review of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Roy N, Merrill RM, Gray SD, et al. Voice disorders in the general population: prev-
alence, risk factors, and occupational impact. Laryngoscope 2005;115(11):
1988–95.
2. Roy N, Merrill RM, Thibeault S, et al. Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers
and the general population. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004;47(2):281–93.
3. Duff MC, Proctor A, Yairi E. Prevalence of voice disorders in African American
and European American preschoolers. J Voice 2004;18(3):348–53.
4. Carding PN, Roulstone S, Northstone K, et al. The prevalence of childhood
dysphonia: a cross-sectional study. J Voice 2006;20(4):623–30.
5. Silverman EM. Incidence of chronic hoarseness among school-age children.
J Speech Hear Disord 1975;40(2):211–5.
6. Roy N, Stemple J, Merrill RM, et al. Epidemiology of voice disorders in the
elderly: preliminary findings. Laryngoscope 2007;117:628–33.
7. Golub JS, Chen PH, Otto KJ, et al. Prevalence of perceived dysphonia in a geri-
atric population. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54(11):1736–9.
8. Coyle SM, Weinrich BD, Stemple JC. Shifts in relative prevalence of laryngeal
pathology in a treatment-seeking population. J Voice 2001;15(3):424–40.
9. Titze IR, Lemke J, Montequin D. Populations in the US workforce who rely on
voice as a primary tool of trade: a preliminary report. J Voice 1997;11(3):254–9.
10. Jones K, Sigmon J, Hock L, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for voice problems
among telemarketers. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128(5):571–7.
11. Long J, Williford HN, Olson MS, et al. Voice problems and risk factors among
aerobics instructors. J Voice 1998;12(2):197–207.
12. Smith E, Kirchner HL, Taylor M, et al. Voice problems among teachers: differ-
ences by gender and teaching characteristics. J Voice 1998;12(3):328–34.
13. Cohen SM, Dupont WD, Courey MS. Quality-of-life impact of nonneoplastic
voice disorders: a meta-analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;115(2):128–34.
14. Benninger MS, Ahuja AS, Gardner G, et al. Assessing outcomes for dysphonic
patients. J Voice 1998;12(4):540–50.
15. Mirza N, Ruiz C, Baum ED, et al. The prevalence of major psychiatric patholo-
gies in patients with voice disorders. Ear Nose Throat J 2003;82(10):808–10,
812, 814.
16. Rosen CA, Lee AS, Osborne J, et al. Development and validation of the voice
handicap index-10. Laryngoscope 2004;114(9):1549–56.
17. Ramig LO, Verdolini K. Treatment efficacy: voice disorders. J Speech Lang Hear
Res 1998;41(1):S101–16.
18. Schwartz SR, Cohen SM, Dailey SH, et al. Clinical practice guideline: hoarse-
ness (dysphonia). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141(3 Suppl 2):S1–31.
19. Johnson JT, Newman RK, Olson JE. Persistent hoarseness: an aggressive
approach for early detection of laryngeal cancer. Postgrad Med 1980;67(5):
122–6.
20. Klein HC. Light up the larynx. JAMA 1976;236(9):1017.
21. Barker M, Dort JC. Laryngeal examination: a comparison of mirror examination
with a rigid lens system. J Otolaryngol 1991;20(2):100–3.
22. Dunklebarger J, Rhee D, Kim S, et al. Video rigid laryngeal endoscopy
compared to laryngeal mirror examination: an assessment of patient comfort
and clinical visualization. Laryngoscope 2009;119(2):269–71.
23. Lacoste L, Karayan J, Lehuede MS. A comparison of direct, indirect, and fiber-
optic laryngoscopy to evaluate vocal cord paralysis after thyroid surgery.
Thyroid 1996;6(1):17–21.
24. Merati AL, Rieder AA. Normal endoscopic anatomy of the pharynx and larynx.
Am J Med 2003;115(Suppl 3A):10S–4S.
25. Eller R, Ginsburg M, Lurie D, et al. Flexible laryngoscopy: a comparison of fiber
optic and distal chip technologies. Part 1: vocal fold masses. J Voice 2008;
22(6):746–50.
26. Feierabend RH, Shahram MN. Hoarseness in adults. Am Fam Physician 2009;
80(4):363–70.
27. Hammer MJ, Barlow SM. Laryngeal somatosensory deficits in Parkinson’s
disease: implications for speech respiratory and phonatory control. Exp Brain
Res 2010;201(3):401–9.
28. Mau T. Diagnostic evaluation and management of hoarseness. Med Clin North
Am 2010;94(5):945–60.
29. Sataloff RT, Hawkshaw MJ, Divi V, et al. Physical examination of voice profes-
sionals. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2007;40(5):953–69, v–vi.
30. Sataloff RT, Spiegel JR, Hawkshaw MJ. Strobovideolaryngoscopy: results and
clinical value. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991;100(9 Pt 1):725–7.
1122 Chang et al
31. Casiano RR, Zaveri V, Lundy DS. Efficacy of videostroboscopy in the diagnosis
of voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1992;107(1):95–100.
32. Kennedy TL, Gilroy PA, Millman B. Strobovideolaryngoscopy in the manage-
ment of acute laryngeal trauma. J Voice 2004;18(1):130–7.
33. Mortensen M, Schaberg M, Woo P. Diagnostic contributions of videolaryngostro-
boscopy in the pediatric population. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;
136(1):75–9.
34. Patel R, Dailey S, Bless D. Comparison of high-speed digital imaging with stro-
boscopy for laryngeal imaging of glottal disorders. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
2008;117(6):413–24.
35. Kaszuba SM, Garrett CG. Strobovideolaryngoscopy and laboratory voice eval-
uation. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2011;40(5):991–1001, vi.
36. Deliyski DD, Hillman RE. State of the art laryngeal imaging: research and clinical
implications. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;18(3):147–52.
37. Krausert CR, Olszewski AE, Taylor LN, et al. Mucosal wave measurements and
visualization techniques. J Voice 2011;25(4):395–405.
38. Poels PJ, de Jong FI, Schutte HK. Consistency of the preoperative and intrao-
perative diagnosis of benign vocal fold lesions. J Voice 2003;17(3):425–33.
39. Dailey SH, Spanou K, Zeitels SM. The evaluation of benign glottis lesions: rigid
telescopic stroboscopy versus suspension microlaryngoscopy. J Voice 2007;
21(1):112–8.
40. Halum SL, Patel N, Smith TL, et al. Laryngeal electromyography for adult unilat-
eral vocal fold immobility: a survey of the American Broncho-Esophagological
Association. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2005;114(6):425–8.
41. Blitzer A, Crumley RL, Dailey SH, et al. Recommendations of the Neurolaryngol-
ogy Study Group on laryngeal electromyography. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2009;140(6):782–93.
42. Koufman JA, Postma GN, Whang CS. Diagnostic laryngeal electromyography:
the Wake Forest experience 1995-1999. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;
124(6):603–6.
43. Meyer TK, Hillel AD. Is laryngeal electromyography useful in the diagnosis and
management of vocal fold paresis/paralysis? Laryngoscope 2011;121(2):234–5.
44. Heman-Ackah YD, Barr A. The value of laryngeal electromyography in the eval-
uation of laryngeal motion abnormalities. J Voice 2006;20(3):452–60.
45. Simpson CB, Cheung EJ, Jackson CJ. Vocal fold paresis: clinical and electro-
physiologic features in a tertiary laryngology practice. J Voice 2009;23(3):
396–8.
46. Sataloff RT, Praneetvatakul P, Heuer RJ, et al. Laryngeal electromyography: clin-
ical application. J Voice 2010;24(2):228–34.
47. Stager SV, Bielamowicz SA. Using laryngeal electromyography to differentiate
presbylarynges from paresis. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010;53(1):100–13.
48. Gavazzoni FB, Scola RH, Lorenzoni PJ, et al. The clinical value of laryngeal elec-
tromyography in laryngeal immobility. J Clin Neurosci 2011;18(4):524–7.
49. Hydman J, Bjorck G, Persson JK, et al. Diagnosis and prognosis of iatrogenic
injury of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009;118(7):
506–11.
50. Merati AL, Halum SL, Smith TL. Diagnostic testing for vocal fold paralysis:
survey of practice and evidence-based medicine review. Laryngoscope 2006;
116(9):1539–52.
51. Glastonbury CM. Non-oncologic imaging of the larynx. Otolaryngol Clin North
Am 2008;41(1):139–56, vi.
52. Pretorius PM, Milford CA. Investigating the hoarse voice. BMJ 2008;337:a1726.
53. El Badawey MR, Punekar S, Zammit-Maempel I. Prospective study to assess
vocal cord palsy investigations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138(6):
788–90.
54. Wippold FJ 2nd. Head and neck imaging: the role of CT and MRI. J Magn Reson
Imaging 2007;25(3):453–65.
55. Ng SH, Chang TC, Ko SF. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: MRI and CT assessment.
Neuroradiology 1997;39(10):741–6.
56. Xie CM, Liang BL, Wu PH, et al. Spiral computed tomography (CT) and
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessment of the skull base encroach-
ment in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Ai Zheng 2003;22(7):729–33 [in Chinese].
57. Liu AY, Yousem DM, Chalian AA. Economic consequences of diagnostic
imaging for vocal cord paralysis. Acad Radiol 2001;8(2):137–48.
58. Stecco A, Sapanaro A, Carriero A. Patient safety issues in magnetic resonance
imaging: state of the art. Radiol Med 2007;112(4):491–508.
59. Jaffurs D, Denny A. Diagnostic pediatric computed tomographic scans of the
head: actual dosage versus estimated risk. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124(4):
1254–60.
60. Mazonakis MA, Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, et al. Thyroid dose from common head
and neck CT examinations in children: is there an excess risk for thyroid cancer
induction? Eur Radiol 2007;17(5):1352–7.
61. Serafini G, Zadra N. Anaesthesia for MRI in the paediatric patient. Curr Opin
Anaesthesiol 2008;21(4):499–503.
62. Kannikeswaran N, Mahajan PV, Sethuraman U, et al. Sedation medications
received and adverse events related to sedation for brain MRI in children
with and without developmental disabilities. Paediatr Anaesth 2009;19(3):
250–6.
63. Metzner J, Domino KB. Risks of anesthesia or sedation outside the operating
room: the role of the anesthesia care provider. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2010;
23(4):523–31.
64. Maertens K, de Jong FI. The voice handicap index as a tool for assessment of
the biopsychosocial impact of voice problems. B-ENT 2007;3(2):61–6.
65. Morzaria S, Damrose EJ. A comparison of the VHI, VHI-10, and V-RQOL for
measuring the effect of botox therapy in adductor spasmodic dysphonia.
J Voice 2010;26(3):378–80. [Epub ahead of print].
66. Murry T, Medrado R, Hogikyan ND. The relationship between ratings of voice
quality and quality of life measures. J Voice 2004;18(2):183–92.
67. Kasper C, Schuster M, Psychogios G, et al. Voice handicap index and voice-
related quality of life in small laryngeal carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
2011;268(3):401–4.
68. Xu W, Han D, Li H. Application of the mandarin Chinese version of the voice
handicap index. J Voice 2010;24(6):702–7.
69. Yamaguchi H, Shrivastav R, Andrews ML, et al. A comparison of voice quality
ratings made by Japanese and American listeners using the GRBAS scale. Folia
Phoniatr Logop 2003;55(3):147–57.
70. Kazi R, De Cordova J, Singh A. Voice-related quality of life in laryngectomees:
assessment using the VHI and V-RQOL symptom scales. J Voice 2007;21(6):
728–34.
71. Lundstrom E, Hambarberg B, Munck-Wikland E. Voice handicap and health-
related quality of life in laryngectomees: assessments with the use of VHI and
EORTC questionnaires. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2009;61(2):83–91.
1124 Chang et al
72. da Costa de Ceballos AG, Carvalho FM, de Araujo TM, et al. Diagnostic validity
of Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) compared with perceptive-auditory
and acoustic speech pathology evaluations of the voice. J Voice 2010;24(6):
715–8.
73. Kempster GB, Garratt BR, Verdolini Abbott K, et al. Consensus auditory-
perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2009;18(2):124–32.
74. Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Conner NP. Establishing validity of the Consensus
Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech Lang Pathol
2011;20(1):14–22.
75. Thomas LB, Stemple JC. Voice therapy: does science support the art? Commun
Dis Rev 2007;1(1):49–77.
76. Helou LB, Solomon NP, Henry LR, et al. The role of listener experience on
Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) ratings of post-
thyroidectomy voice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2010;19(3):248–58.
77. Solomon NP, Helou LB, Stojadinovic A. Clinical versus laboratory ratings of
voice using the CAPE-V. J Voice 2011;25(1):e7–14.
78. Leonard R. Voice therapy and vocal nodules in adults. Curr Opin Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2009;17(6):453–7.
79. McCrory E. Voice therapy outcomes in vocal fold nodules: a retrospective audit.
Int J Lang Commun Disord 2001;36(Suppl):19–24.
80. Sulica L, Behrman A. Management of benign vocal fold lesions: a survey of
current opinion and practice. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;112(10):
827–33.
81. Cohen SM, Garrett CG. Utility of voice therapy in the management of vocal fold
polyps and cysts. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136(5):742–6.
82. D’Alatri L, Galla S, Rigante M, et al. Role of early voice therapy in patients
affected by unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122(9):936–41.
83. Mattioli F, Bergamini G, Alicandri-Ciufelli M, et al. The role of early voice therapy
in the incidence of motility recovery in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Logoped
Phoniatr Vocol 2011;36(1):40–7.
84. Schindler A, Bottero A, Capaccio P, et al. Vocal improvement after voice therapy
in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Voice 2008;22(1):113–8.
85. Sauder C, Roy N, Tanner K, et al. Vocal function exercises for presbylaryngis:
a multidimensional assessment of treatment outcomes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryng-
ol 2010;119(7):460–7.
86. Gartner-Schmidt J, Rosen C. Treatment success for age-related vocal fold
atrophy. Laryngoscope 2011;121(3):585–9.
87. Van Houtte E, Van Lierde K, Claeys S. Pathophysiology and treatment of muscle
tension dysphonia: a review of the current knowledge. J Voice 2011;25(2):
202–7.
88. Leung AK, Kellner JD, Johnson DW. Viral croup: a current perspective. J Pediatr
Health Care 2004;18(6):297–301.
89. Jackson-Menaldi CA, Dzul AI, Holland RW. Allergies and vocal fold edema:
a preliminary report. J Voice 1999;13(1):113–22.
90. Jackson-Menaldi CA, Dzul AI, Holland RW. Hidden respiratory allergies in voice
users: treatment strategies. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2002;27(2):74–9.
91. Rennie CE, Dwivedi RC, Khan AS, et al. Lichen planus of the larynx. J Laryngol
Otol 2011;125(4):432–5.
92. Dean CM, Sataloff RT, Hawkshaw MJ, et al. Laryngeal sarcoidosis. J Voice 2002;
16(2):283–8.
93. Mayerhoff RM, Pitman MJ. Atypical and disparate presentations of laryngeal
sarcoidosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010;119(10):667–71.
94. Ozcan KM, Bahar S, Ozcan I, et al. Laryngeal involvement in systemic lupus er-
ythematosus: report of two cases. J Clin Rheumatol 2007;13(5):278–9.
95. Vasiliou A, Nikolopoulos TP, Manolopoulos L, et al. Laryngeal pemphigus without
skin manifestations and review of the literature. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007;
264(5):509–12.
96. Eng J, Sabanathan S. Airway complications in relapsing polychondritis. Ann
Thorac Surg 1991;51(4):686–92.
97. Woo JH, Kim DY, Kim JW, et al. Efficacy of percutaneous vocal fold injections for
benign laryngeal lesions: prospective multicenter study. Acta Otolaryngol 2011;
131(12):1326–32.
98. Woodbury K, Smith LJ. Relapsing polychondritis: a rare etiology of dysphonia
and novel approach to treatment. Laryngoscope 2011;121(5):1006–8.
99. Krespi YP, Mitrani M, Husain S, et al. Treatment of laryngeal sarcoidosis with in-
tralesional steroid injection. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1987;96(6):713–5.
100. Mortensen M, Woo P. Office steroid injections of the larynx. Laryngoscope 2006;
116(10):1735–9.
101. Tateya I, Omori K, Kojima H, et al. Steroid injection for Reinke’s edema using
fiberoptic laryngeal surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123(3):417–20.
102. Lee SH, Yeo JO, Choi JI, et al. Local steroid injection via the cricothryoid
membrane in patients with a vocal nodule. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2011;137(10):1011–6.
103. Tateya I, Omori K, Kojima H, et al. Steroid injection to vocal nodules using fiber-
optic laryngeal surgery under topical anesthesia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
2004;261(9):489–92.
104. Reveiz L, Cardona AF, Ospina EG. Antibiotics for acute laryngitis in adults.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2):CD004783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
14651858.CD004783.pub3.
105. Koufman JA. The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux
disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour
pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in
the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope 1991;101(4 Pt 2 Suppl 53):1–78.
106. Hopkins C, Yousaf U, Pedersen M. Acid reflux treatment for hoarseness.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(1):CD005054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
14651858.CD005054.pub2.
107. Reichel O, Dressel H, Wiederanders K, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled
trial with esomeprazole for symptoms and signs associated with laryngophar-
yngeal reflux. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139(3):414–20.
108. Masaany M, Marina MB, Sharifa Ezat WP, et al. Empirical treatment with panto-
prazole as a diagnostic tool for symptomatic adult laryngopharyngeal reflux.
J Laryngol Otol 2011;125(5):502–8.
109. Vinson KN, Zraick RI, Raglan FJ. Injection versus medialization laryngoplasty for
the treatment of unilateral vocal fold paralysis: follow-up at six months. Laryngo-
scope 2010;120(9):1802–7.
110. Johns MM, Garrett CG, Hwang J, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes following laryn-
geal endoscopic surgery for non-neoplastic vocal fold lesions. Ann Otol Rhinol
Laryngol 2004;113(8):597–601.
111. Morgan JE, Zraick RI, Griffin AW, et al. Injection versus medialization laryngo-
plasty for the treatment of unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Laryngoscope 2007;
117(11):2068–74.
1126 Chang et al
112. Arviso LC, Johns MM 3rd, Mathison CC, et al. Long-term outcomes of injection
laryngoplasty in patients with potentially recoverable vocal fold paralysis. Laryn-
goscope 2010;120(11):2237–40.
113. Yung KC, Likhterov I, Courey MS. Effect of temporary vocal fold injection medi-
alization on the rate of permanent medialization laryngoplasty in unilateral vocal
fold paralysis patients. Laryngoscope 2011;121(10):2191–4.
114. Rosen CA, Gartner-Schmidt J, Casiano R, et al. Vocal fold augmentation with
calcium hydroxylapatite: twelve-month report. Laryngoscope 2009;119(5):
1033–41.
115. Carroll TL, Rosen CA. Long-term results of calcium hydroxylapatite for vocal fold
augmentation. Laryngoscope 2011;121(2):313–9.
116. Song PC, Sung CK, Franco RA Jr. Voice outcomes after endoscopic injection
laryngoplasty with hyaluronic acid stabilized gel. Laryngoscope 2010;
120(Suppl 4):S199.
117. Karpenko AN, Dworkin JP, Meleca RJ, et al. Cymetra injection for unilateral vocal
fold paralysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;112(11):927–34.
118. Milstein CF, Akst LM, Hicks MD, et al. Long-term effects of micronized Alloderm
injection for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Laryngoscope 2005;115(9):1691–6.
119. Remacle M, Lawson G, Jamart J, et al. Treatment of vocal fold immobility by
injectable homologous collagen: short-term results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
2006;263(3):205–9.
120. Kimura M, Nito T, Sakakibara K, et al. Clinical experience with collagen injection
of the vocal fold: a study of 155 patients. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008;35(1):67–75.
121. Tan M, Woo P. Injection laryngoplasty with micronized dermis: a 10-year expe-
rience with 381 injections in 344 patients. Laryngoscope 2010;120(12):2460–6.
122. Reijonen P, Tervonen H, Harinen K, et al. Long-term results of autologous
fascia in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;
266(8):1273–8.
123. Cantarella G, Mazzola RF, Domenichini E, et al. Vocal fold augmentation by
autologous fat injection with lipostructure procedure. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2005;132(2):239–43.
124. Hsiung MW, Pai L. Autogenous fat injection for glottic insufficiency: analysis of
101 cases and correlation with patients’ self-assessment. Acta Otolaryngol
2006;126(2):191–6.
125. Lee SW, Son YI, Kim CH, et al. Voice outcomes of polyacrylamide hydrogel
injection laryngoplasty. Laryngoscope 2007;117(10):1871–5.
126. Hertegård S, Hallén L, Laurent C, et al. Cross-linked hyaluronan versus collagen
for injection treatment of glottal insufficiency: 2-year follow-up. Acta Otolaryngol
2004;124(10):1208–14.
127. Sulica L, Rosen CA, Postma GN, et al. Current practice in injection augmenta-
tion of the vocal folds: indications, treatment principles, techniques, and compli-
cations. Laryngoscope 2010;120(2):319–25.
128. Chester MW, Stewart MG. Arytenoid adduction combined with medialization thy-
roplasty: an evidence-based review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129(4):
305–10.
129. Li AJ, Johns MM, Jackson-Menaldi C, et al. Glottic closure patterns: type I thy-
roplasty versus type I thyroplasty with arytenoids adduction. J Voice 2011;25(3):
259–64.
130. Paniello RC, Edgar JD, Kallogjeri D, et al. Medialization versus reinnervation for
unilateral vocal fold paralysis: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Laryngo-
scope 2011;121(10):2172–9.
Endoscopic Skull Base Resection for Malignancy
Rounak B. Rawala, Mitchell R. Gorea, Richard J. Harveyb,

Adam M. Zanation, MDa,*
KEYWORDS
Evidence-based otolaryngology Malignant cancer Head and neck cancer
Endoscopic resection Skull base
KEY POINTS
The following points list the level of evidence based on Oxford Center for Evidence-Based
Medicine guidelines.
Esthesioneuroblastoma—Endoscopic approaches may provide higher survival rates
compared with traditional craniofacial open surgery. Level 2A.
Sinonasal melanoma—Traditional craniofacial resection remains the gold standard, but
endoscopic methods may provide similar rates of long-term survival for patients. Level 4.
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma—Endoscopic approaches may provide optimistic results, but
evidence comparing outcomes with traditional craniofacial resection is lacking. Level 4.
Sinonasal adenocarcinoma (SNAC)—Endoscopic approaches may provide optimistic
results, but evidence comparing outcomes with traditional craniofacial resection is lack-
ing. Level 4.
Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC)—Two-year survival rates for endoscopic
approaches are encouraging, but further prospective comparative data are necessary.
Level 4.
OVERVIEW OF SINONASAL AND SKULL BASE CANCER
Initial interest in endonasal skull base surgery was first described by Caton and Paul in
the late 19th century. Since that time, advances in anatomic knowledge, technology,
and level of comfort with endoscopic techniques have allowed the use of combined
and wholly endoscopic surgery for various sinonasal malignancies. Endoscopy of
Financial disclosures: RBR gratefully acknowledges support from the Doris Duke Charitable
Foundation to University of North Carolina for support of the Clinical Research Fellowship.
The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose
related to this article.
a
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, 170 Manning Drive, CB 7070, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7070, USA; b Department of
Otolaryngology/Skull Base Surgery, St Vincent’s Hospital, 390 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst,
Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia
E-mail address: adam_zanation@med.unc.edu

1128 Rawal et al
benign tumors allowed for decreased complication rates, reduction in brain retraction,
and minimization of neurologic morbidity. Once surgeons were comfortable with
resection of sinonasal and skull base benign tumors, attention shifted toward the
use of endoscopic methods for sinonasal malignancy.1,2
Although there has been a shift in interest away from traditional craniofacial resection
(tCFR), use of endoscopy has not changed the principles of oncologic surgery. The
primary goal is still complete resection of tumor with negative margins and minimization
of morbidity.3 The use of endoscopy assists by providing superior visualization, higher
magnification of vital structures, assurance of appropriate margins, avoidance of cos-
metic deformity, and preservation of normal anatomy.4
The endoscopic approach has encountered its own criticisms. Resection of the
tumor often requires a piecemeal approach and may theoretically increase the chance
of tumor seeding.5 Achievement of hemostasis, adequate visualization, and ability to
perform reconstruction are additional barriers facing endoscopic approaches. Early
results tend to be encouraging, however. A recent literature review found that endos-
copy offers better quality of life outcomes than tCFR,6 and a second study found
a decrease in morbidity when using the endoscopic approach compared with open
tCFR.7 Although these studies are encouraging, further research is necessary when
evaluating the endoscopic resection of malignant tumors.
Malignancies of the sinonasal tract and skull base encompass a heterogeneous,
diverse group with respect to etiology, epidemiology, and histology, as classified by
the World Health Organization.8 As such, treatment of disease must be specifically
tailored to each disease process. Reporting on homogeneous skull base outcomes
becomes difficult, especially because sinonasal malignancies are rare and thus out-
comes often cannot be reported with sufficient power. Because squamous cell carci-
noma is so heterogeneous in presentation and outcome, it has been excluded from
this review.
INCIDENCE AND EPIDEMIOLOGY OF SINONASAL AND SKULL BASE CANCER

Esthesioneuroblastoma
Esthesioneuroblastoma, also known as olfactory neuroblastoma, is a rare tumor,
constituting only 3% to 4% of all intranasal tumors.9,10
Esthesioneuroblastoma has a bimodal distribution, with peaks between ages 11
and 20 years and then ages 51 and 60 years.11,12
The precise cause of esthesioneuroblastoma remains unclear, although the cell of
origin is believed to be the specialized sensory neuroepithelial olfactory cells normally
found in the upper part of the nasal cavity, which includes the superior nasal concha,
the upper part of the septum, the roof of the nose, and the cribriform plate of the
ethmoid.13
Sinonasal Melanoma
Mucosal melanoma accounted for only 1.3% of 85,000 cases of patients with
melanoma during a 10-year period as reported by the National Cancer Data
Base.14
The incidence of mucosal melanoma differs between geographic and racial
boundaries, being particularly common in Japan.15
Of those patients with mucosal melanoma, 55% of lesions were found in the head
and neck.
Mucosal melanoma of the head and neck region has a peak incidence in patients
aged 60 to 80 years, with a mean age of presentation of 64.3 years.16
Endoscopic Resection of Malignancy 1129
The prognosis of patients with sinonasal melanoma is poor. Five-year survival rates
range from 14% to 45%.17–20 The nasal cavity is the most common site of origin, fol-
lowed by maxillary and ethmoid sinuses.21 Most patients with mucosal melanoma are
asymptomatic, allowing for insidious growth before discovery. Although most patients
present without metastasis, one-third of all patients will eventually develop regional or
distant metastasis; median time to death after distant metastasis is 3 months.22
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC)

In the United States, nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is rare, with an incidence
of less than 1 per 100,000 person-years.23
NPC has a distinct geographic and ethnic variation, being highly endemic to the
Cantonese living in the central region of Guangdong Province in southern
China.24
The male-to-female ratio is 2:1.
NPC has a bimodal age distribution, with the first peak occurring in late childhood
and a second peak occurring between people aged 50 to 60 years.25
Risk factors for NPC include high levels of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) antibody
titers, family history of NPC, consumption of salt-preserved fish, cigarette smok-
ing, and occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust.
Other than dietary modification, however, no definitive preventative measures have
been published.23 NPC is thought to arise from the epithelial lining of the nasopharynx.
The World Health Organization classifies NPC into 3 different types based on degree
of differentiation on histopathology (Table 1).8
Sinonasal Adenocarcinoma (SNAC)

Sinonasal adenocarcinoma (SNAC) comprises 11.4% of all sinonasal tumors26 and
refers to one of several types of tumors. SNAC may be further subdivided into
intestinal-type adenocarcinoma (ITAC) and non–intestinal-type adenocarcinoma (non-
ITAC), which can be further subdivided into low- and high-grade types (Fig. 1).27,28
Sinonasal ITAC
Sinonasal ITAC actually consists of a heterogeneous mix of tumors that may be further
classified, as published by Barnes (Table 2).29 Each subtype has its own epidemiology,
outcomes, and clinically significant differences that are beyond the scope of this article. In
general, the prognosis of SNAC is poor, with a 5-year survival between 20% and 50%.30
ITAC has been closely related to occupational exposure to wood and leather dust
in many countries, sometimes presenting up to 40 years after exposure.31
Workers in the wood furniture–making industries have up to 500 times the risk
of developing ITAC as those in the general population.32 This occupational expo-
sure may also be the reason why ITAC affects males up to 3 times more often
than females, with a mean age of presentation at 65 years old.33
Table 1
World Health Organization classification of NPC
Stage Histopathology
I Keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma
II Nonkeratinizing carcinoma
III Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma
1130 Rawal et al
Fig. 1. World Health Organization classification of SNACs.
The theory that ITAC is caused by particulate matter is further corroborated by

evidence that the middle and lower turbinates are most affected.34 Definitive carcino-
genic cause for ITAC, however, remains to be discovered.
Sinonasal Non-ITAC
Sinonasal non-ITAC is further subdivided into low-grade and high-grade subtypes,
with distinguishing characteristics for each. High-grade non-ITACs are usually marked
by increased cytologic atypia, necrosis of adjacent tissue, and higher degrees of mitotic
activity.8
High-grade non-ITACs have a more rapid course, with a 3-year survival of 20%,35
whereas low-grade tumors have excellent prognosis, with 5-year survival of up to
85%.36
Anatomic location of non-ITAC also differs, with high-grade tumors mainly pre-
senting in the maxillary sinus,36 whereas low-grade ITAC present most com-
monly in the nasal cavity, followed by the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses.28
Table 2
Classification of and survival for intestinal-type SNACs
Barnes Klesinsasser and Schroede 3-Year Cumulative Survival

Papillary PTCC - I 82%
Colonic PTCC - II 54%
Solid PTCC - III 36%
Mucinous Alveolar goblet 48%
Signet ring 0%
Mixed Transitional 71%
Abbreviation: PTCC, papillary tubular cylinder cell.

Data from Barnes L. Intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses.
Am J Surg Pathol 1986;10(3):192–202; and Kleinsasser O, Schroeder HG. Adenocarcinomas of the
inner nose after exposure to wood dust. Morphological findings and relationships between histo-
pathology and clinical behavior in 79 cases. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1988;245:1–15.
Sinonasal Undifferentiated Carcinoma (SNUC)

Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC) is a recently recognized, rapidly pro-
gressive pathologic entity.
First described in 1986, its median survival time was first reported at 4 months at
the time of diagnosis.37 Since then, survival time has advanced to a still-dismal 1
year from the time of diagnosis.38
The cause of SNUC remains unknown, especially because SNUC has no asso-
ciation with the EBV.39
Median age of SNUC at diagnosis has been reported to be 50 to 57 years, with an
age range of 20 to 84 years.40
Poor prognostic factors include dural invasion and orbital involvement at the time
of diagnosis.41
EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSTIC TESTING

Esthesioneuroblastoma Staging
There is no current consensus on the most accurate staging method of esthesioneur-
oblastoma. Staging was first proposed in 1976 by Kadish and colleagues42 and has
since been modified by Morita and colleagues12 to divide the malignancy into 4 sub-
types based on metastasis (Table 3). Other staging methods requiring various proce-
dures have been previously described. Biller and colleagues proposed a staging
system that required craniotomy,43 Dulguerov and Calcaterra described a staging
system that required imaging (Table 4),44 and Hyams described a staging system
requiring histopathologic specimens.45 Other authors have argued that combining 1
or more of these staging systems can yield better predictions for patient outcomes
than any one of those staging systems alone.46
Although PET imaging has been used for occasional case reports,47,48 no current
guidelines exist for its role in the newly diagnosed esthesioneuroblastoma. Dissemina-
tion to the cervical lymph nodes is the most common location for metastasis, with an
overall rate of metastasis between 20% and 25% of all esthesioneuroblastomas.49,50
A recent meta-analysis by Zanation and colleagues51 shows that if clinical, radio-
graphic, or cytologic evidence of esthesioneuroblastoma is apparent, treatment with
neck dissection followed by radiotherapy should be instituted. Very limited data exist
regarding whether elective treatment of the neck would improve prognosis.
Sinonasal Melanoma Staging
Many staging systems for sinonasal melanoma have been published and no system
has been accepted as the gold standard. Thompson and colleagues52 proposed a
Table 3
Modified Kadish staging for esthesioneuroblastoma
Stage Extension
A Tumor limited to the nasal cavity
B Tumor involving the nasal and paranasal sinuses
C Tumor extending beyond the nasal and paranasal sinuses, including involvement
of the cribriform plate, base of the skull, orbit cavity, or intracranial cavity
D Tumor with metastasis to cervical nodes or distant sites
Data from Morita A, Ebersold MJ, Olsen KD, et al. Esthesioneuroblastoma: prognosis and manage-
ment. Neurosurgery 1993;32(5):706–14 [discussion: 714–5]; and Kadish S, Goodman M, Wang CC.
Olfactory neuroblastoma. A clinical analysis of 17 cases. Cancer 1976;37(3):1571–6.
1132 Rawal et al
Table 4
Dulguerov and Calcaterra staging for esthesioneuroblastoma
Type Extension
T1 Tumor involving the nasal cavity and/or paranasal sinuses (excluding the sphenoid
sinus), sparing the most superior ethmoidal cells
T2 Tumor involving the nasal cavity and/or paranasal sinuses (including the sphenoid
sinus) with extension to, or erosion of, the cribriform plate
T3 Tumor extending into the orbit or protruding into the anterior cranial fossa,
without dural invasion
T4 Tumor involving the brain
From Dulguerov P, Calcaterra T. Esthesioneuroblastoma: the UCLA experience 1970–1990. Laryngo-

scope 1992;102(8):843–9; with permission.
combined staging system for sinonasal melanoma that parallels the TNM staging con-
cept, combining classifications that incorporate features of size (Clark level and Bre-
slow thickness), sites of anatomic involvement (T category, Kadish and colleagues12
and Freedman and colleagues53), and the importance of distant spread (Ballantyne54
and Chang and colleagues14) (Table 5).
A recent study by Gal and colleagues21 evaluated staging of sinonasal melanoma
according to both the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 6th edition site-
specific staging classification55 and the newer AJCC 7th edition site-specific staging
classification (Table 6).56 Gal and colleagues21 found that the newer staging system is
Table 5
Thompson staging system for sinonasal tract and nasopharynx mucosal malignant melanoma
Nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, and nasopharynx histopathology staging

Primary tumor
T1 Single anatomic site
T2 Two or more anatomic sites
Regional lymph node
N1 Any lymph node metastasis
Distant metastasis
M1 Distant metastasis
Stage grouping
Stage I T1, N0, M0
Stage II T2, N0, M0
Stage III Any T, any N, M1
Stage IV Any T, any N, M
T1, tumor limited to a single anatomic site. A single anatomic site is defined as 1 of the follow-
ing: nasal cavity, maxillary sinus, frontal sinus, ethmoid sinus, sphenoid sinus, or nasopharynx.
Subsites, such as septum, lateral wall, turbinate, nasal floor, or nasal vestibule, are not separately
considered.
T2, tumor involving more than 1 anatomic site. More than 1 anatomic site is defined by tumor
involvement of more than 1 anatomic site (although not subsite) as cited for T1, including any
extension into subcutaneous tissues, skin, palate, pterygoid plate, floor, wall, or apex of the orbit,
cribriform plate, infratemporal fossa, dura, brain, middle cranial fossa, cranial nerves, clivus.
From Thompson LD, Wieneke JA, Miettinen M. Sinonasal tract and nasopharyngeal melanomas:
a clinicopathologic study of 115 cases with a proposed staging system. Am J Surg Pathol
2003;27(5):594–611; with permission.
Table 6
Staging of mucosal melanoma of the head and neck, AJCC guidelines, 7th edition
Primary tumor (T)

T3 Mucosal disease
T4a Moderately advanced disease; tumor involving deep soft tissue, cartilage,
bone, or overlying skin
T4b Very advanced disease; tumor involving brain, dura, skull base, lower cranial
nerves (IX, X, XI, XII), masticator space, carotid artery, prevertebral space,
or mediastinal structures
Regional lymph nodes (N)
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0 No regional lymph node metastases
N1 Regional lymph node metastases present
Distant metastasis (M)
M0 No distant metastasis
M1 Distant metastasis present
Staging
Stage III T3, N0, M0
Stage IVA T4a, N0, M0
T3–T4a, N1, M0
Stage IVB T4B, any N, M0
Stage IVC Any T, any N, M1
From Edge SE, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th edition. New York:
Springer, 2009; with permission.
more efficient; it has eliminated T1 and T2 classifications and increased precision in

the staging of advanced tumors with regard to survival rates. Overall, 5-year survival
rates, however, remained at 24.2% between the 2 staging systems.
Goerres and colleagues retrospectively examined the use of whole body PET
with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) during initial staging of patients with sinonasal
melanoma.57 Ten patients were screened with FDG-PET to search for local or distant
metastasis. No patients were found to have metastatic spread either preoperatively
or postoperatively. Prospective studies in the cutaneous melanoma population have
allowed FDG-PET to become the gold standard imaging method for those patients,58
but further studies are required to extend this conclusion for patients with sinonasal
melanoma.
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC) Staging
Staging of NPC is done via the AJCC tumor node metastasis (TNM) system
(Table 7).56 Diagnosis of NPC is made definitively with biopsy. Evaluation via imaging
is made with computed tomography (CT) scanning or magnetic resonance (MR)
imaging, with MR imaging preferred to CT. MR imaging provides a clearer picture of
deep tumor infiltration into soft tissue and may cause dramatic changes in the TNM
staging of the tumor.59 Additional imaging may be considered for those patients
with advanced tumor staging, such as N3 and higher. Pooled results of a meta-
analysis by Xu and colleagues60 showed that of 1276 eligible patients, 174 (13.7%)
patients eventually had distant metastases or secondary primary cancers. The authors
conclude that PET/CT scanning could provide a high level of diagnostic performance
in detecting these additional metastases if used as a screening tool at the patient’s
1134 Rawal et al
Table 7
Staging system for cancer of the nasopharynx, AJCC guidelines, 7th edition
Primary tumor (T)

TX Primary tumor cannot be assessed
T0 No evidence of primary tumor
Tis Carcinoma in situ
T1 Tumor confined to the nasopharynx, or tumor extends to oropharynx and/or
nasal cavity without parapharyngeal extensiona
T2 Tumor with parapharyngeal extensiona
T3 Tumor involves bony structures of skull base and/or paranasal sinuses
T4 Tumor with intracranial extension and/or involvement of cranial nerves,
hypopharynx, orbit, or with extension to the infratemporal fossa/masticator space
Regional lymph nodes (N)b
NX Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0 No regional lymph node metastasis
N1 Unilateral metastasis in cervical lymph node(s), 6 cm or less in greatest dimension,
above the supraclavicular fossa, and/or unilateral or bilateral, retropharyngeal
lymph nodes, 6 cm or less, in greatest dimensionc
N2 Bilateral metastasis in cervical lymph node(s), 6 cm or less in greatest dimension,
above the supraclavicular fossac
N3 Metastasis in a lymph node(s) >6 cm and/or to supraclavicular fossa
N3a Greater than 6 cm in dimension
N3b Extension to the supraclavicular fossad
Distant metastasis (M)
M0 No distant metastasis
M1 Distant metastasis
a
Parapharyngeal extension denotes posterolateral infiltration of tumor.
b
The distribution and the prognostic impact of regional lymph node spread from nasopharynx
cancer, particularly of the undifferentiated type, are different from those of other head and
neck mucosal cancers and justify the use of a different N classification scheme.
c
Midline nodes are considered ipsilateral nodes.
d
Supraclavicular zone or fossa is relevant to the staging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. It is defined
by 3 points: (1) the superior margin of the sternal end of the clavicle, (2) the superior margin of the
lateral end of the clavicle, and (3) the point where the neck meets the shoulder. Note that this
would include caudal portions of levels IV and VB. All cases with lymph nodes (whole or part) in
the fossa are considered N3b.
From Edge SE, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. New York: Springer;
2009; with permission.
initial evaluation. In addition to imaging evaluation, patients with NPC should also have
titers of EBV antibody assayed. Plasma EBV titers may allow for better pretreatment
risk categorization, initial treatment response, and collection of a baseline level should
relapse occur.61,62
Sinonasal Adenocarcinoma (SNAC) Staging

All SNACs must undergo biopsy to distinguish between the various types of salivary,
intestinal, and nonintenstinal SNACs. Most ITACs are clinically advanced (T3 and T4)
on presentation; therefore, staging via the TMN staging system has little prognostic
significance.63 Because of the possibility of local spread from salivary gland–type
SNAC, it is essential for SNACs to be imaged properly for diagnosis, with MR imaging
being preferred to CT.64 Even so, salivary gland–type adenocarcinomas tend to be

underestimated on radiology because of undetected perineural spread.65 Imaging
or endoscopic studies of the gastrointestinal tract, with or without assays of carci-
noembryonic antigen, are necessary to rule out metastasis for ITAC.66,67
Sinonasal Undifferentiated Carcinoma (SNUC) Staging

SNUC is staged either using the Kadish staging system (see Table 3)12,43 or according
to the AJCC staging system for the nasal cavity and ethmoid sinus (see Table 7).57
Although imaging will not be able to provide a distinguishing diagnosis from other
nasopharyngeal neoplasms, it is required for SNUC,68 with MR imaging being the pre-
ferred medium. CT scanning may demonstrate regional lymphadenopathy, and distant
metastasis can also be excluded with a chest CT scan.41 Bone scans are appropriate
if bone symptoms are present.
EVIDENCE-BASED ENDOSCOPIC SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF SINONASAL AND SKULL

BASE CANCER
Esthesioneuroblastoma Surgery
Goals for the surgical treatment of esthesioneuroblastoma include resection of the
entire cribriform plate and crista galli.69 Numerous articles detail results from endo-
scopic resection of the tumor versus traditional craniofacial approaches. A meta-
analysis published by Devaiah and Andreoli in 2009 compiled results from a total of
1170 cases of esthesioneuroblastoma published in 49 journal articles between 1992
and 2008.70 Log-rank tests showed a greater survival rate for endoscopic surgery
compared with open surgery, even when stratifying for publication year (P 5 .0018).
The study was likely confounded by the high number of open surgery techniques
used on Kadish C and D staged tumors, whereas endoscopic and endoscopic-
assisted techniques were more likely to be used on Kadish A and B staged tumors.
Because of a long and chronic natural history, previous studies show that rigorous
monitoring of patients with esthesioneuroblastoma up to 15 to 20 years is neces-
sary.71 In addition, monitoring of patients who have had endoscopically resected
tumors required at least 10 years of follow-up to assess clinical efficacy.72 Although
less than a 10-year follow-up was used, Folbe and colleagues73 described 23 patients
who were treated endoscopically and had a mean follow-up time of 45.2 months (11–
152 months). Folbe and colleagues confirmed the results of other smaller studies that
even patients with Kadish stage C disease can be effectively treated using solely
endoscopic techniques followed by radiation without sacrificing local control.12,74
Sinonasal Melanoma Surgery

The use of purely endoscopic methods for malignant mucosal melanoma is relatively
new75 and limited outcomes and patient selection data exist. In addition, a lack of
a standardized staging method decreases the ease for homogeneous reporting for
sinonasal melanoma. Regardless, surgery remains the mainstay of therapy for sino-
nasal melanoma. In regard to endoscopic approaches versus traditional craniofacial
resection, there is no evidence for or against the use of one approach. Most published
studies report on a small number of patients or case reports. Long-term results for
endoscopic management of sinonasal melanoma are promising. With a cohort of 11
patients treated endoscopically, Lund and colleagues76 reported an 80% overall
survival at 5 years and 36% disease-free survival. The results of this study are out-
standing for this aggressive tumor and likely represent a selection bias that cannot
be applied across all sinonasal melanomas.
1136 Rawal et al
Limiting factors for the use of endoscopy in sinonasal melanoma include its pro-
clivity for recurrence, late stage at diagnosis, and rarity of occurrence. Because of
its poor prognosis, some authors have gone so far as stating that surgical cure may
not be possible for sinonasal melanoma and endoscopic surgery should instead be
solely used for palliative purposes to improve quality of life and disease-free survival
time.77,78 The major limitation of this disease is the aggressive and early metastasis
rate and not necessarily the ability to resect the sinonasal portion of the disease
with endoscopic or open techniques.
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Surgery

Because of the close proximity to vital neurovascular structures, chemoradiation
therapy remains the gold standard treatment of primary NPC. However, salvage
surgery is indicated when treating locoregional recurrent NPC. Exclusively endo-
scopic approaches to NPC were reported by Chen and colleagues79 in 2007. They
published the results of 6 patients who underwent endoscopic nasopharyngectomy
in salvaging recurrent T1 to T2A NPC. Results showed no need for conversion
to open approaches, no complications during surgery, and only 1 local recurrence
in a mean follow-up time of 29 months (16–59 months). Chen and colleagues ana-
lyzed a cohort of 37 patients receiving endoscopic salvage nasopharyngectomy
in 2009.80 Short-term results are encouraging, as 35 of 37 patients achieved en
bloc extirpation of recurrent tumor with negative surgical margins. No complica-
tions were encountered during surgery and no patients required additional pos-
toperative radiation therapy. The 2-year survival rate, local relapse-free survival
rate, and progression-free survival rate were 84.2%, 86.3%, and 82.6%, respec-
tively. It is important to remember that both of these retrospective studies had con-
siderable patient selection bias, as all patients (except for 2 T3 staged patients) had
early-stage disease (T1 to T2). The literature shows that nasopharyngectomy for
patients with high recurrent T stage carries a poor prognosis regardless of surgical
method.81
Sinonasal Adenocarcinoma (SNAC) Surgery

Assessment of the best surgical treatment of SNAC remains difficult as most studies
publish results in combined histologic groups. The choice of whether to use endo-
scopic, combined endoscopic and open, or traditional craniofacial resection (tCFR)
approaches for SNAC remains controversial. Pedunculated or isolated tumors at-
tached to the septum or turbinates can be easily removed with a good margin of
normal tissue with either approach. The current gold standard for tumors that abut
or transgress the skull base or orbit, however, remains tCFR,70 and future outcomes
must be compared with this.
Nicolai and colleagues82 found that the 5-year survival rate for adenocarcinoma
increased from 60% to 80% when switching from a combined endoscopic and cranio-
facial resection to a wholly endoscopic approach. It is important to note, however, that
selection bias may have confounded these results as patients with more invasive
tumors were selected to have combined approaches. Jardeleza and colleagues83 re-
ported on 12 patients with adenocarcinoma who were treated with wholly endoscopic
approaches and found overall disease-free survival and overall survival rates of 91.6%
at a median follow-up time of 30 months (10–96 months). A review of the literature per-
formed by Devaiah and Lee in 2010 examined 16 articles (representing 150 retrospec-
tive cases) in which either wholly endoscopic or combined endoscopic methods were
used.84 Endoscopic management appears to be a feasible method of surgery with
increasingly favorable results, but increased information with better reporting methods
(ie, grouping tumors based on histologic subtypes) is required to perform proper meta-
analysis.
Sinonasal Undifferentiated Carcinoma (SNUC) Staging
Because of its highly aggressive nature, treatment of SNUC is multimodal, usually
including surgical treatment, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy.85,86 Yet, because of
its rarity, no consensus has been achieved regarding optimal surgical methods for
treatment. Revenaugh and colleagues87 recently published the only study using endo-
scopic methods as a part of multimodal treatment of resection of SNUC. Seven of
their patients treated with endoscopic resection and concurrent chemoradiation had
a 2-year overall survival rate of 85.7% and a 2-year disease free survival rate of
71.4%. This is slightly better than historical 2-year overall survival rates (42.9–64%)
as reported in a review of the literature by Mendenhall and colleagues.88 Selection
bias did not play as large a part in the study by Revenaugh and colleagues because
all patients (with an exception of 1 T1-staged patient) had tumors staged at T4 with
no nodal metastases.
SUMMARY: ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF SINONASAL CANCERS
The preliminary results of endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancers are encouraging;

however, the current data must be taken into consideration regarding publication and
selection biases:
There is no single prospective head-to-head comparison with current open

surgical gold standard techniques.
All of the outcome publications come from extremely experienced endoscopic
surgeons whose results may not be generalizable to lower-volume practices.
The full spectrum of skull base and sinonasal cancer surgery must include the
gold standard techniques of open craniofacial resection and transfacial/transcra-
nial approaches.
The surgeon and patient must understand the possibility of needing to convert from
an endoscopic to open approaches for clearance of margins if needed. The rate of this
is often underreported and the importance is understated. The single best determining
factor of patient outcomes within the heterogeneous groups of skull base cancers is
surgical margin status. This should be the primary oncologic goal regardless of which
approach is taken.

Esthesioneuroblastoma
Evidence level 2A
Surgical intervention with or without radiation therapy is generally required for all
Kadish stages A through D and Dulgeurov stages T1 through T4 of esthesioneuro-
blastoma. When combined with careful patient selection, endoscopic approaches
may provide higher survival rates compared with traditional craniofacial open
surgery.
Sinonasal Melanoma
Evidence level 4
Case-series remain the dominant form of reporting for endoscopic techniques of sino-
nasal malignancy. tCFR remains the predominant gold standard form of therapy, but
1138 Rawal et al
with adequate experience, endoscopic methods for extirpation of sinonasal malig-

nancy may provide similar rates of long-term survival for patients.
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC)

Evidence level 4
Evidence for endoscopic versus tCFR approaches for salvage surgery of recurrent
NPC is lacking. Two studies published encouraging reports of short-term results for
endoscopic techniques marked by a decrease in morbidity.79,80 Endoscopic surgery
may result in better outcomes, but further research is required to make this conclusion
definitively.
Sinonasal Adenocarcinoma (SNAC)

Evidence level 4
Because of the high degree of heterogeneity in SNAC, a lack of evidence exists in
comparing wholly endoscopic versus traditional craniofacial resection versus com-
bined endoscopic and craniofacial resection techniques. When combined with careful
patient selection, wholly endoscopic and combined endoscopic approaches do have
favorable outcomes.
Sinonasal Undifferentiated Carcinoma (SNUC)

Evidence level 4
Only 1 study examines the use of endoscopic resection of SNUC as a part of a
multimodal therapy regimen. There are no studies that compare open versus endo-
scopic techniques for SNUC.87 Overall 2-year survival rates are optimistic, however,
and further prospective data would help elucidate the role of endoscopy in resection
of SNUC.
Evidence grades follow Cochrane evidence-base.
REFERENCES
1. Kim BJ, Kim DW, Kim SW, et al. Endoscopic versus traditional craniofacial resec-
tion for patients with sinonasal tumors involving the anterior skull base. Clin Exp
Otorhinolaryngol 2008;1(3):148–53. C.
2. Luong A, Citardi MJ, Batra PS. Management of sinonasal malignant neoplasms:
defining the role of endoscopy. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24(2):150–5. C.
3. Snyderman CH, Carrau RL, Kassam AB, et al. Endoscopic skull base sur-
gery: principles of endonasal oncological surgery. J Surg Oncol 2008;97(8):
658–64. C.
4. Chen MK. Minimally invasive endoscopic resection of sinonasal malignancies
and skull base surgery. Acta Otolaryngol 2006;126(9):981–6. C.
5. Roh HJ, Batra PS, Citardi MJ, et al. Endoscopic resection of sinonasal malignan-
cies: a preliminary report. Am J Rhinol 2004;18(4):239–46. C.
6. de Almeida JR, Witterick IJ, Vescan AD. Functional outcomes for endoscopic and
open skull base surgery: an evidence-based review. Otolaryngol Clin North Am
2011;44(5):1185–200. C.
7. Tay HN, Leong JL, Sethi DS. Long-term results of endoscopic resection of naso-
pharyngeal tumours. Med J Malaysia 2009;64(2):159–62. C.
8. Barnes L, Eveson JW, Reichart P, et al. Pathology and genetics of head and neck
tumors. Lyon (France): IARC Press; 2005. B.
9. McCormack LJ, Harris HE. Neurogenic tumors of the nasal fossa. JAMA 1955;
157:318–21. C.
10. Kumar M, Fallon RJ, Hill JS, et al. Esthesioneuroblastoma in children. J Pediatr
Hematol Oncol 2002;24:482–7. C.
11. Elkon D, Hightower SI, Lim ML, et al. Esthesioneuroblastoma. Cancer 1979;44:
1087–94. C.
12. Morita A, Ebersold MJ, Olsen KD, et al. Esthesioneuroblastoma: prognosis and
management. Neurosurgery 1993;32(5):706–14 [discussion: 714–5]. C.
13. Thompson LD. Olfactory neuroblastoma. Head Neck Pathol 2009;3(3):252–9. C.
14. Chang AE, Karnell LH, Menck HR. The National Cancer Data Base report on cuta-
neous and noncutaneous melanoma: a summary of 84,836 cases from the past
decade. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the
American Cancer Society. Cancer 1998;83(8):1664–78. B.
15. Papaspyrou G, Garbe C, Schadendorf D, et al. Mucosal melanomas of the head
and neck: new aspects of the clinical outcome, molecular pathology, and treat-
ment with c-kit inhibitors. Melanoma Res 2011;21(6):475–82. D.
16. Clifton N, Harrison L, Bradley PJ, et al. Malignant melanoma of nasal cavity and
paranasal sinuses: report of 24 patients and literature review. J Laryngol Otol
2011;125(5):479–85. C.
17. Yii NW, Eisen T, Nicolson M, et al. Mucosal malignant melanoma of the head and
neck: the Marsden experience over half a century. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)
2003;15(4):199–204. C.
18. Temam S, Mamelle G, Marandas P, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy for primary
mucosal melanoma of the head and neck. Cancer 2005;103(2):313–9. C.
19. Manolidis S, Donald PJ. Malignant mucosal melanoma of the head and neck:
review of the literature and report of 14 patients. Cancer 1997;80(8):1373–86. C.
20. Owens JM, Roberts DB, Myers JN. The role of postoperative adjuvant radiation
therapy in the treatment of mucosal melanomas of the head and neck region.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129(8):864–8. C.
21. Gal TJ, Silver N, Huang B. Demographics and treatment trends in sinonasal
mucosal melanoma. Laryngoscope 2011;121(9):2026–33. B.
22. Dauer EH, Lewis JE, Rohlinger AL, et al. Sinonasal melanoma: a clinicopathologic
review of 61 cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;138(3):347–52. C.
23. Chang ET, Adami HO. The enigmatic epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carci-
noma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10):1765–77. B.
24. Yu MC, Yuan JM. Epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Semin Cancer
Biol 2002;12(6):421–9. B.
25. Berry MP, Smith CR, Brown TC, et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the young. Int
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1980;6(4):415–21. C.
26. Dulgerov P, Jacobsen MS, Allal AS, et al. Nasal and paranasal sinus carcinoma:
are we making progress? A series of 220 patients and a systematic review.
Cancer 2002;92:3012–29. B.
27. Bhaijee F, Carron J, Bell D. Low-grade nonintestinal sinonasal adenocarcinoma:
a diagnosis of exclusion. Ann Diagn Pathol 2011;15(3):181–4. C.
28. Franchi A, Santucci M, Wenig B. Adenocarcinoma. In: Barnes L, Eveson JW,
Reichart P, Sidransky D, editors. World Health Organization classification of
tumors. Pathology and genetics of head and neck tumors. Lyon (France): IARC;
2005. p. 20–3. B.
29. Barnes L. Intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal
sinuses. Am J Surg Pathol 1986;10(3):192–202. C.
30. Klintenberg C, Olofsson J, Hellquist H, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the ethmoid
sinuses. A review of 28 cases with special reference to wood dust exposure.
Cancer 1984;54(3):482–8. C.
1140 Rawal et al
31. Macbeth R. Malignant disease of the paranasal sinuses. J Laryngol Otol 1965;79:
592–612. D.
32. Acheson ED. Nasal cancer in the furniture and boot and shoe manufacturing
industries. Prev Med 1976;5(2):295–315. C.
33. Abecasis J, Viana G, Pissarra C, et al. Adenocarcinomas of the nasal cavity and
paranasal sinuses: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study of 14
cases. Histopathology 2004;45(3):254–9. C.
34. Thompson LD. Intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma. Ear Nose Throat J
2010;89(1):16–8. C.
35. Heffner DK, Hyams VJ, Hauck KW, et al. Low-grade adenocarcinoma of the nasal
cavity and paranasal sinuses. Cancer 1982;50(2):312–22. C.
36. Knegt PP, Ah-See KW, vd Velden LA, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the ethmoidal
sinus complex: surgical debulking and topical fluorouracil may be the optimal
treatment. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;127(2):141–6. E.
37. Frierson HF, Mills S, Fechner R, et al. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: an
aggressive neoplasm derived from schneiderian epithelium and distinct from
olfactory neuroblastoma. Am J Surg Pathol 1986;10:771–9. C.
38. Gorelick J, Ross D, Marentette L, et al. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma:
case series and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 2000;47(3):750–4 [discus-
sion: 754–5]. C.
39. Cerilli LA, Holst VA, Brandwein MS, et al. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma:
immunohistochemical profile and lack of EBV association. Am J Surg Pathol
2001;25(2):156–63. D.
40. Rischin D, Coleman A. Sinonasal malignancies of neuroendocrine origin. Hematol
Oncol Clin North Am 2008;22(6):1297–316 xi. C.
41. O’Reilly AG, Wismayer DJ, Moore EJ. Prognostic factors for patients with sino-
nasal undifferentiated carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2010;120(Suppl 4):S173. C.
42. Kadish S, Goodman M, Wang CC. Olfactory neuroblastoma. A clinical analysis of
17 cases. Cancer 1976;37(3):1571–6. C.
43. Biller HF, Lawson W, Sachdev VP, et al. Esthesioneuroblastoma: surgical treat-
ment without radiation. Laryngoscope 1990;100:1199–201. B.
44. Dulguerov P, Calcaterra T. Esthesioneuroblastoma: the UCLA experience 1970–
1990. Laryngoscope 1992;102(8):843–9. C.
45. Hyams VJ. Tumors of the upper respiratory tract and ear. In: Hyams VJ,
Batsakis JG, Michaels L, editors. Atlas of tumor pathology. Second series, fascicle
25. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1988. p. 240–8. C.
46. Miyamoto RC, Gleich LL, Biddinger PW, et al. Esthesioneuroblastoma and sino-
nasal undifferentiated carcinoma: impact of histological grading and clinical
staging on survival and prognosis. Laryngoscope 2000;110(8):1262–5. C.
47. Nguyen BD, Roarke MC, Nelson KD, et al. F-18 FDG PET/CT staging and postther-
apeutic assessment of esthesioneuroblastoma. Clin Nucl Med 2006;31(3):172–4. C.
48. Yu J, Koch CA, Patsalides A, et al. Ectopic Cushing’s syndrome caused by an
esthesioneuroblastoma. Endocr Pract 2004;10:119–24. C.
49. Gore MR, Zanation AM. Salvage treatment of late neck metastasis in esthesio-
neuroblastoma: a meta-analysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;135:
1030–4. B.
50. Davis RE, Weissler MC. Esthesioneuroblastoma and neck metastasis. Head Neck
1992;14:477–82. C.
51. Zanation AM, Ferlito A, Rinaldo A, et al. When, how and why to treat the neck in
patients with esthesioneuroblastoma: a review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;
267(11):1667–71. B.
52. Thompson LD, Wieneke JA, Miettinen M. Sinonasal tract and nasopharyngeal
melanomas: a clinicopathologic study of 115 cases with a proposed staging
system. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27(5):594–611. C.
53. Freedman HM, De Santo LW, Devine KD, et al. Malignant melanoma of the nasal
cavity and paranasal sinuses. Arch Otolaryngol 1973;97:322–5. C.
54. Ballantyne AJ. Malignant melanoma of the skin of the head and neck. Am J Surg
1970;120(4):425–31. C.
55. Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG. AJCC cancer staging manual. Philadelphia: Lip-
pincott-Raven; 2002. B.
56. Edge SE, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. New York:
Springer; 2009. B.
57. Goerres GW, Stoeckli SJ, von Schulthess GK, et al. FDG PET for mucosal
malignant melanoma of the head and neck. Laryngoscope 2002;112(2):
381–5. C.
58. Rinne D, Baum RP, Hör G, et al. Primary staging and follow-up of high risk
melanoma patients with whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission
tomography. Cancer 1998;82:1664–71. B.
59. Liao XB, Mao YP, Liu LZ, et al. How does magnetic resonance imaging influence
staging according to AJCC staging system for nasopharyngeal carcinoma
compared with computed tomography? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;
72(5):1368. C.
60. Xu GZ, Guan DJ, He ZY. (18)FDG-PET/CT for detecting distant metastases and
second primary cancers in patients with head and neck cancer. A meta-analysis.
Oral Oncol 2011;47(7):560–5 [Epub 2011 May 28]. C.
61. Lin JC, Wang WY, Chen KY, et al. Quantification of plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA
in patients with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2004;
350(24):2461–70. B.
62. Leung SF, Zee B, Ma BB, et al. Plasma Epstein-Barr viral deoxyribonucleic acid
quantitation complements tumor-node-metastasis staging prognostication in
nasopharyngeal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(34):5414–8. B.
63. Franchi A, Gallo O, Santucci M. Clinical relevance of the histological classifi-
cation of sinonasal intestinal-type adenocarcinomas. Hum Pathol 1999;30(10):
1140–5. C.
64. Raghavan P, Phillips CD. Magnetic resonance imaging of sinonasal malignan-
cies. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2007;18(4):259–67. D.
65. Ayadi K, Ayadi L, Daoud E, et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the parotid with
facial nerve invasion. Tunis Med 2010;88(1):46–8. C.
66. Robles C, Cooper EM. A case of intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma. J Natl
Med Assoc 2004;96(1):117–9. C.
67. McKinney CD, Mills SE, Franquemont DW. Sinonasal intestinal-type adenocarci-
noma: immunohistochemical profile and comparison with colonic adenocarci-
noma. Mod Pathol 1995;8(4):421–6. C.
68. Phillips CD, Futterer SF, Lipper MH, et al. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma:
CT and MR imaging of an uncommon neoplasm of the nasal cavity. Radiology
1997;202(2):477–80. C.
69. Harvey RJ, Winder M, Parmar P, et al. Endoscopic skull base surgery for sino-
nasal malignancy. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2011;44(5):1081–140. C.
70. Devaiah AK, Andreoli MT. Treatment of esthesioneuroblastoma: a 16-year meta-
analysis of 361 patients. Laryngoscope 2009;119(7):1412–6. B.
71. Bachar G, Goldstein DP, Shah M, et al. Esthesioneuroblastoma: the Princess
Margaret Hospital experience. Head Neck 2008;30(12):1607–14. C.
1142 Rawal et al
72. de Gabory L, Abdulkhaleq HM, Darrouzet V, et al. Long-term results of 28 esthe-

sioneuroblastomas managed over 35 years. Head Neck 2011;33(1):82–6. C.
73. Folbe A, Herzallah I, Duvvuri U, et al. Endoscopic endonasal resection of esthe-
sioneuroblastoma: a multicenter study. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:91–4. C.
74. Gallia GL, Reh DD, Salmasi V, et al. Endonasal endoscopic resection of esthesio-
neuroblastoma: the Johns Hopkins Hospital experience and review of the litera-
ture. Neurosurg Rev 2011;34(4):465–75. C.
75. Stammberger H, Anderhuber W, Walch C, et al. Possibilities and limitations of
endoscopic management of nasal and paranasal sinus malignancies. Acta Oto-
rhinolaryngol Belg 1999;53(3):199–205. C.
76. Lund V, Howard DJ, Wei WI. Endoscopic resection of malignant tumors of the
nose and sinuses. Am J Rhinol 2007;21(1):89–94. C.
77. Castelnuovo P, Battaglia P, Locatelli D, et al. Endonasal micro-endoscopic treat-
ment of malignant tumors of the paranasal sinuses and anterior skull base. Oper-
at Tech Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;17(3):152–67. C.
78. Tabaee A, Nyquist G, Anand VK, et al. Palliative endoscopic surgery in advanced
sinonasal and anterior skull base neoplasms. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;
142(1):126–8. C.
79. Chen MK, Lai JC, Chang CC, et al. Minimally invasive endoscopic nasopharyng-
ectomy in the treatment of recurrent T1-2a nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Laryngo-
scope 2007;117(5):894–6. C.
80. Chen MY, Wen WP, Guo X, et al. Endoscopic nasopharyngectomy for locally
recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2009;119(3):516–22. C.
81. To EW, Lai EC, Cheng JH, et al. Nasopharyngectomy for recurrent nasopharyn-
geal carcinoma: a review of 31 patients and prognostic factors. Laryngoscope
2002;112:1877–82. C.
82. Nicolai P, Battaglia P, Bignami M, et al. Endoscopic surgery for malignant tumors
of the sinonasal tract and adjacent skull base: a 10-year experience. Am J Rhinol
2008;22(3):308–16. C.
83. Jardeleza C, Seiberling K, Floreani S, et al. Surgical outcomes of endoscopic
management of adenocarcinoma of the sinonasal cavity. Rhinology 2009;47(4):
354–61. C.
84. Devaiah AK, Lee MK. Endoscopic skull base/sinonasal adenocarcinoma surgery:
what evidence exists? Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24(2):156–60. C.
85. Enepekides DJ. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: an update. Curr Opin Oto-
laryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;13(4):222–5. C.
86. Smullen JL, Amedee RG. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: a review of the
literature. J La State Med Soc 2001;153(10):487–90. C.
87. Revenaugh PC, Seth R, Pavlovich JB, et al. Minimally invasive endoscopic
resection of sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. Am J Otolaryngol 2011;32(6):
464–9. C.
88. Mendenhall WM, Mendenhall CM, Riggs CE Jr, et al. Sinonasal undifferentiated
carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 2006;29(1):27–31. C.
GRADES OF RECOMMENDATION
A consistent level 1 studies.

B consistent level 2 or 3 studies or extrapolations from level 1 studies.
C level 4 studies or extrapolations from level 2 or 3 studies.
D level 5 evidence or troublingly inconsistent or inconclusive studies of any level.
Management of Glottic Cancer
Dana M. Hartl, MD, PhD*
KEYWORDS
Larynx Vocal folds Squamous cell carcinoma Surgery Laser
Chemoradiation Radiation therapy
KEY POINTS
Curative treatment for Tis: transoral surgery or radiation therapy. Prefer surgery for younger
patients. Save radiotherapy for failure of a surgical approach (level 3).
Curative treatment for T1a: surgery or radiation therapy (level 3).
Curative treatment for T1T2 with anterior commissure involvement: surgery provides better
initial local control and final laryngeal preservation than radiation therapy (level 3).
Curative treatment for T2: T2 with normal vocal fold mobility: surgery or radiation therapy
(level 3); surgery provides better outcomes for tumors with impaired vocal fold mobility
compared with radiation therapy alone (level 3).
Curative treatment for T3T4: When a nonsurgical organ preservation strategy is chosen,
concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin provides better outcomes than radiation therapy
alone or induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (level 1).
DISEASE OVERVIEW: MAIN ISSUES IN GLOTTIC CARCINOMA
Evidence-based medicine is the “conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current

best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients,” and “inte-
grating experience with the best available data in decision making.”1 Common
sense–based medicine tells us that the main goal in treating glottis carcinoma is
long-term disease-free survival. Then, if possible, while not compromising oncological
outcomes, one should attempt to preserve a functional larynx. For many years, laryn-
geal squamous cell carcinoma was not thought to be a “chemosensitive” tumor, and
surgery and radiation therapy were the only treatment options. For the past 30 years,
Department of Head and Neck Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
* Institut Gustave Roussy, 114 rue Edouard Vaillant, Villejuif 94805, France.
E-mail address: dana.hartl@igr.fr

1144 Hartl
however, clinical research has shown, with high-level evidence, that these tumors can
be cured using combined-modality treatment, the addition of chemotherapy providing
high rates of local control, with organ preservation.2
For glottic cancer, local control rates best reflect the effects of local treatments.
Disease-specific survival for these tumors is related to metastatic disease that may
appear years later, and may or may not be affected by the choice of initial therapy.
Finally, and contrary to other cancers, in patients with head and neck cancer, overall
survival is not always related to the cancer being treated, owing to associated comor-
bidities that determine a large part of overall survival.
So the question is, how can we optimize locoregional control for glottic cancer,
while optimizing preservation of function and quality of life? Can we (and if so, how)
optimize disease-free survival through our choice of initial therapies? This article
aims at viewing the current evidence available for the management of glottic cancer,
at all stages.
EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF GLOTTIC CARCINOMA
The clinical and radiologic workup for glottic carcinoma aims at reconstituting, in the
physician’s “minds eye,” a 3-dimensional image of the tumor. Deep and superficial
tumor extensions determine the T stage, but T stage is not the only factor involved
in treatment decision making.
Clinical Workup
There is no particular evidence in the medical literature guiding initial clinical evalua-
tion, which thus relies on “common sense–based medicine.” The clinical examination
is today most often performed using fiberoptic laryngoscopy or a rigid endoscope,
but no study has ever prospectively compared mirror laryngoscopy (by experienced
physicians) with these technologies. Evaluation under general anesthesia is performed
systematically by most teams, but then again, there are no studies to “prove” that this
is better than not doing it. Common sense shows that general health and comorbid-
ities should also be thoroughly evaluated.
Laryngeal mobility is a main issue in glottic cancer. Dr Kirchner’s3 seminal study
of whole-organ sections has shown that decreased vocal fold motion may be
caused simply by a bulky tumor, but also by a tumor invading the paraglottic space.
Laryngeal mobility was the only predictor of minor thyroid cartilage invasion by T1
to T3 tumors treated with conservation laryngeal surgery and for early-stage to mid-
stage tumors involving the anterior commissure (level 3 evidence).4–6
The anterior commissure (AC) must be thoroughly evaluated clinically, as the
approach and outcomes differ from tumors without AC involvement (see later in this
article). Subglottic extension and proximity of the tumor to the cricoid cartilage must
be ascertained in view of organ-preservation surgery, in which a stable cricoid must
be preserved.7
Radiologic Assessment
Locoregional assessment of glottic cancer relies on computed tomography (CT),
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission
tomography combined with CT scan (PET/CT). CT and MRI have been shown to
improve diagnostic accuracy for laryngeal carcinoma as compared with the clin-
ical and endoscopic workup alone (level 2 evidence).8,9 Using CT, diagnostic
accuracy improved from 58% to 80%, and using MRI, accuracy improved from
58% to 88%. The difference between adding CT versus MRI was not significant.
Management of Glottic Cancer 1145
Using pathology as the gold standard, reported sensitivities of CT scan for predict-
ing cartilage invasion by laryngeal carcinoma range from 46% to 67% and can be
as low as 10% for early-stage to mid-stage tumors amenable to conservation
laryngeal surgery (level 3 evidence).5 Reported specificities range from 87% to
94% (level 3 evidence).10 For the diagnosis of cartilage invasion, MRI has been
shown to be significantly more sensitive than CT (respective sensitivities of 89%
vs 66%) but also significantly less specific than CT (respective specificities of
84% vs 94%) (level 2 evidence).11 Thus, there is no evidence favoring CT over
MRI for the initial staging of laryngeal cancer, and each imaging modality has its
limitations and pitfalls.
In the evaluation of the neck, CT, MRI, ultrasound, and PET are clearly more sensi-
tive and specific than neck palpation alone for the diagnosis of metastatic lymphade-
nopathy (level 2 evidence).12–14 There does not seem to be a significant difference
among these modalities in terms of sensitivity or specificity,15,16 although one study
(level 2 evidence) found that MRI was more accurate for metastatic nodes smaller
than 10 mm, but found no difference between MRI or CT for larger nodes.17 PET/CT
is more accurate than PET alone for the staging of the neck (level 2 evidence).18
One prospective study comparing CT, MRI, ultrasound, and PET/CT using pathology
as the gold standard found that PET/CT was significantly the most sensitive and
specific imaging modality for detecting metastatic nodes in head and neck cancer
(level 2 evidence).19
EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT OF GLOTTIC CARCINOMA
Given the wide range of presentation and tumor extensions, we have approached
evidence-based management by attempting to answer several common questions.
What is the Evidence for the Optimum Therapy for In Situ Glottic Carcinoma (Tis)?
Surgery (vocal fold “stripping,” transoral laser resection, or open surgery) and radia-
tion therapy have been widely used in the treatment of glottic Tis.
Initial local control ranges from 56% to 92% with surgery and from 79% to 98%
with radiation therapy.
The final local control after salvage of recurrences ranges from 90% to 100% for
both modalities.
Ultimate laryngeal preservation ranges from 85% to 100% for surgery and 88%
to 98% for radiation therapy (level 4 evidence).20–28
Retrospective comparative studies have shown that ultimate local control and ulti-
mate laryngeal preservation are not significantly different between these 2 modalities
(level 3 evidence).20,29 Nguyen and colleagues,29 however, found a significantly higher
local recurrence rate after vocal fold stripping, efficiently managed with repeat surgery
or radiation therapy. Le and colleagues20 found that involvement of the AC by the
tumor was a significant factor lowering local control, using any treatment modality
(level 3 evidence).
Current evidence does not show a difference in terms of ultimate oncological
outcomes for Tis, but aspects other than the statistical evidence may be taken into
account when treatment planning. Both transoral laser resection and radiation therapy
are well tolerated, with low morbidity21,24,25; however, local possibilities and expertise
play a role in treatment choice. The duration of radiation therapy and the indirect
costs also intervene. Finally, radiation therapy is a “one-shot” treatment that cannot
1146 Hartl
be repeated, and some have suggested that it should be used only after other modal-
ities have failed.25
What Does the Evidence Say Is the Optimal Treatment for Mid-Vocal Fold T1a
Carcinoma?
As for Tis, radiation therapy and surgery, especially transoral laser resection, are
widely used in the treatment of T1a glottic carcinoma. Open surgery may be an option
in rare selected cases, but has been largely supplanted by transoral laser resection
owing to the low morbidity.30
Initial local control rates with both treatment modalities range from 85% to 100%
(level 4 evidence). Initial local control, ultimate local control, and survival have not
been found to be significantly different (level 3 evidence).31–33
Two retrospective studies comparing contemporary cohorts (level 3 evidence) found
that ultimate laryngeal preservation rates were higher for tumors initially managed
surgically, as compared with initial radiation therapy:
96% versus 82% for Stoeckli and colleagues31
95% versus 77% for Schrijvers and colleagues32
However, a relatively recent meta-analysis of 7600 pooled patients found no sig-
nificant difference in local control or larynx preservation between transoral laser
surgery and radiation therapy (level 3 evidence).34 Thus, if local control and survival
are the goal, both therapeutic options are valid, although relatively low-level evidence
suggests that the ultimate laryngeal preservation rate is slightly lower for patients
initially treated using radiation therapy.
Other factors determining treatment choice are cost, treatment availability, local
expertise, and voice quality. Level 3 evidence suggests that transoral laser resection
is less costly than radiation therapy.35–38 Transoral laser resection requires a laser and
a surgical team with experience in this type of minimally invasive surgery, however,
and may not be available at all sites. Radiation therapy has the “reputation” of better
preserving voice quality; however, high-level evidence to prove this is lacking. Current
low-level evidence is based on retrospective studies (level 4 evidence) that show con-
flicting results in terms of voice quality, some showing a better voice after transoral
laser resection,39 others showing a better voice after radiation therapy.40,41 Ultimate
voice quality may be determined by factors other than treatment modality, such as
tumor volume or depth of tumor invasion, reflected in the different types of cordec-
tomy in the European Laryngological Association’s classification for cordectomies.42
Depth of invasion may constitute a bias in some studies regarding voice, but also
possibly regarding oncological outcomes. Finally, the long-term effects of treatment
and the possibility of metachronous second primary head and neck cancer in these
patients should be considered. In the study by Holland and colleagues,43 after a
median follow-up of 68 months, 21% of the patients with early laryngeal cancer
treated by radiation therapy developed a second primary head and neck cancer
(level 4 evidence). The American Broncho-Esophagological Association recommends
favoring surgery when possible for younger patients, to “save” radiation therapy as
a future treatment option (level 5 evidence).44
What Evidence Can Guide Treatment for Tumors T1b or T2 Involving the AC?
AC involvement by early-stage tumors has been shown by level 3 studies to be a factor
for decreased local control as compared with tumors without AC invasion, whether
treated surgically or with radiation therapy.28,45–50 Few studies, however, have directly
compared these 2 treatment modalities for AC tumors.
In 2 studies (level 3 evidence), initial local control was better using open surgery
than using radiation therapy as first-line treatment,51,52 although one of these
studies found that the subgroup of “purely” AC tumors responded better to radi-
ation therapy initially, but that final local control after salvage was worse as
compared with initial surgery.51
A third study also found that surgery (open or transoral laser resection) pro-
vided better initial local control and final laryngeal preservation than radiation
therapy.53
To date, there are no studies directly comparing open surgery for AC tumors with
transoral resection for comparable tumors, and thus the choice of surgical approach
is not evidence based, although, again, current tendencies are in favor of the transoral
approach, because of evidence of lower morbidity as compared with open surgery
(level 3 evidence).47,54
In conclusion, low-level evidence suggests that one should favor surgery as the
initial approach for these tumors; however, other factors may influence treatment
choice. Local possibilities and expertise, as well as cost, may be involved. Exposure
and tumor visualization are absolutely necessary for transoral laser resection and
need to be evaluated before a treatment decision is made. Patient morphology is
also a factor for radiation therapy; a low-lying larynx, near the thorax may compli-
cate dosimetry. Finally, precise staging of the cartilage is important, but difficult,
given the low sensitivity of CT for early-stage tumors involving the AC (level 3
evidence).6
What Does the Evidence Say Is the Best Treatment for T2 Carcinoma?
For T2 tumors with normal vocal fold mobility treated with open conservation surgery,
transoral laser resection, or radiation therapy, initial local control rates range from 84%
to 95% (level 4 evidence).28,54–59
Four retrospective comparative studies (level 3 evidence) comparing radiation
therapy with open or transoral surgery found no significant difference in terms
of local control or survival.31,33,60,61
Regarding the surgical approach, one retrospective study found that local control
was better with a supracricoid partial laryngectomy as compared with a vertical
partial laryngectomy (level 3 evidence).56
For T2 tumors with impaired vocal fold mobility, local control rates are lower than
for T2 tumors with normal mobility, whether the treatment is radiation therapy,
transoral laser resection, or open surgery, with local control rates falling as low as
50%.7,28,33,53,55,59,62–68 Tumors with impaired vocal fold mobility are at higher risk of
minor cartilage invasion (28% histopathological invasion, in one retrospective study),
which is often missed on pretherapeutic CT evaluation (level 3 evidence).6
Even among tumors with normal vocal fold mobility, not all T2 tumors are the same.
For example, Peretti and colleagues57 divided their group of 109 cT2s into 4 different
categories according to the different tumor extensions. They found that
Tumors with deep extension into the paraglottic space (pT3) had a much lower
rate of local control, disease-free survival, and larynx preservation (17% in each
case) than more superficial T2 tumors (with respective rates of 69%–100%, level
3 evidence).
1148 Hartl
Subglottic extension has implications different from a supraglottic extension for

local treatment but also for tumor spread to neck nodes, with a higher risk of
paratracheal metastases for tumors with significant subglottic extension.69
Thus, there is no high-level evidence to guide treatment choices for T2 tumors.

Globally, the use of open surgery has been declining, as transoral resection has taken
over as the main surgical approach for conservation laryngeal surgery,30 but this does
not mean that open surgery is not a legitimate option. The evidence shows high rates
of local control and preservation of a functional larynx with open surgery, in experi-
enced hands for selected patients.61,70,71 For tumors with impaired vocal fold mobility,
organ-preservation surgery is generally preferable to radiation therapy alone, but there
are currently no data comparing surgery with combined modality therapy (concurrent
chemoradiation) for these tumors.
What Is the Evidence Regarding the Management of the Neck for Glottic Cancer
Staged T1T2cN0?
Without elective treatment of the neck, nodal recurrence rates for early-stage (T1T2)
glottic carcinoma are in the range of 4%.72,73 There is no evidence that elective treat-
ment of the neck improves regional control or disease-free survival.
A recent retrospective cancer registry study analyzed the outcomes of 73 patients
with pT2cN0 glottic cancer.74
About half of the patients had undergone elective neck dissection, with occult
metastatic nodes found in 10%.
Multivariate analysis did not find neck dissection or adjuvant treatment to
be significantly related to recurrence-free or overall survival, however (level 3
evidence).
Metastatic Delphian nodes were found in 7.5% of patients with T1b or T2 cancers
with AC involvement treated with supracricoid partial laryngectomy in a recent study
by Wierzbicka and colleagues.75 Delphian node involvement was a significant prog-
nostic factor for locoregional failure, lower larynx preservation, and lower overall sur-
vival (level 3 evidence). This evidence, however, does not confirm the necessity for
neck dissection in all patients, but encourages particular vigilance only when treating
this specific subtype of cancer, and may be an argument (low-level evidence) in favor
of open surgery in these cases. There are currently no guidelines or high-level evi-
dence to guide treatment of the neck for T1T2 glottic tumors, but the low rate of occult
disease and regional recurrence would favor the current practice of not treating the
neck electively (level 5 evidence).69
What Does the Evidence Say Is the Best Treatment for Advanced-Stage Tumors
(T3–T4)?
Chemotherapy and radiation therapy
Ever since the seminal study by the Department of Veterans Affairs using induc-
tion chemotherapy and radiation therapy for larynx preservation in responders, as
opposed to a de facto total laryngectomy, with no adverse effect on survival, nonsur-
gical organ preservation has become a major goal in the treatment of advanced laryn-
geal tumors.2 One must keep in mind, however, that organ-preservation surgery may
still be an option for selected tumors staged T3 and T4a. There are no studies directly
comparing organ-preservation surgery with nonsurgical organ-preservation protocols
for advanced-stage laryngeal tumors, in a prospective manner with comparable
patient groups.
Retrospective noncomparative studies (level 4 evidence) show high rates of local

control and organ preservation for selected patients treated with open surgery (supra-
cricoid partial laryngectomy)76,77 or with transoral laser resection.78,79 As is the case
for T1 and T2 tumors, not all T3s or T4s are the same. Vilaseca and colleagues78 re-
ported a 5-year larynx preservation of 59% for T3 tumors treated with transoral laser
resection, citing vocal fold fixation and laryngeal cartilage invasion as significant prog-
nostic factors for lower local control. Thus, organ-preservation surgery remains an
option for selected patients in specialized centers.
The highest-level evidence that currently exists for laryngeal cancer is in favor
of better locoregional control, organ preservation, and overall survival if concomitant
chemoradiation is used as a nonsurgical means of organ preservation, as compared
with radiation therapy alone or induction chemotherapy protocols.80,81 The 3-arm
prospective randomized trial conducted by Forastiere and colleagues80 comparing
radiation therapy, induction chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) with radiation,
and concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin for advanced laryngeal cancer (level
2 evidence) showed a higher 2-year locoregional control rate for the group treated
with concurrent chemoradiation:
78% versus 61% for the group treated with induction chemotherapy
56% for the group treated with radiation therapy alone
The 2-year laryngeal preservation rate was
88% for the chemoradiation arm versus 75% for the induction chemotherapy
group
70% for the radiation therapy group
In the recent meta-analysis by Blanchard and colleagues81 of randomized con-
trolled trials (level 1 evidence), overall survival improved from 42.5% to 47.0% in
the group of 3216 patients with laryngeal cancer treated with concomitant chemo-
radiation. The benefit was not significant, however, for adjuvant or neoadjuvant
chemotherapy. This study included only randomized controlled trials and compared
locoregional treatment alone (radiation therapy surgery) with locoregional treatment
and chemotherapy. The included studies did not involve taxanes, and the different
types of locoregional treatments were not analyzed separately. This evidence would
imply, however, that accelerated radiation therapy regimens alone do not provide
the survival advantage of concurrent chemoradiation for laryngeal cancer. Current
evidence, then, is in favor of concurrent chemoradiation when a nonsurgical organ-
preservation strategy is chosen.
This evidence does not imply that this strategy is superior to initial total laryngec-
tomy and radiation therapy in terms of oncological results for all patients. A large data-
base study (level 3 evidence) conducted by Hoffman and colleagues82 found that
radiation therapy alone conferred a lower survival rate on T3N0 glottic cancers, but
found no difference in survival when comparing surgery versus concurrent chemora-
diation for these tumors. A recent matched-pair analysis of 132 patients, including
59% laryngeal cancers, 50% T3s and 50% T4s, comparing surgery (total or partial
laryngectomy) plus radiation therapy (or chemoradation for 51%) versus definitive
chemoradiation found no difference in locoregional control, metastasis-free survival
or overall survival between the 2 treatment strategies (level 3 evidence).83
New chemotherapy drugs
Since these studies were published, new highly efficient drugs have been developed
and tested. Adding taxanes (T) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin (P) and
1150 Hartl
5-fluorouracil (F) significantly improves response rates and organ-preservation rates

for laryngeal cancer, as compared with PF alone (level 2 evidence).84,85 Adding induc-
tion TPF to concurrent chemoradiation improved radiologic response rates at 6 to 8
weeks after treatment for stages III to IV head and neck cancers, with no increase
in toxicity or compromise in radiation therapy regimens (level 2 evidence).86 Adding
a targeted therapy, cetuximab, to radiation therapy significantly improves survival
as compared with radiation therapy alone (level 2 evidence),87 leading to recent trials
of cetuximab plus TPF (C-TPF) or TP (TPE) for induction in advanced head and neck
tumors.88,89 Progress in induction and concurrent chemotherapy and targeted thera-
pies will certainly challenge current evidence favoring concurrent chemoradiation with
cisplatin for nonsurgical organ preservation in the near future.
Defining advanced-stage laryngeal cancer

Another question is exactly what does one mean by “advanced” laryngeal cancer.
T-stage takes into account the tumor volume and extensions, cartilage invasion,
and resectability. Global staging (stages I through IVc) takes into account nodal
disease and distant metastases, in addition to T-stage. Prospective randomized trials
tend to exclude particularly advanced tumors with extensive invasion of the thyroid
cartilage or tongue base, for example.80 The results of these randomized trials can
thus be applied only to these selected patient and tumor subgroups. For extensive
stage IV tumors, in fact, current evidence shows an overall survival advantage with
a total laryngectomy as compared with definitive chemoradiation. In the database
study by Chen and Halpern,90 7019 patients with advanced laryngeal cancer (stage
III or IV) were evaluated. Those with stage IV cancer treated with total laryngectomy
had a significantly better overall survival rate than those treated with chemoradiation,
who had a hazard ratio for death of 1.43 (level 3 evidence). Another large retrospective
study by Gourin and colleagues60 included 451 patients, 195 of whom had stage IV
laryngeal cancer. Survival was better for patients treated surgically as compared
with chemoradiation (hazard ratio 3.5) (level 3 evidence).
Globally, for advanced stage tumors, selected tumors may be amenable to conser-
vation surgery (open or endoscopic) or concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin. For
more advanced tumors, a total laryngectomy should still be considered as an impor-
tant treatment option. The results of newer protocols with taxanes and cetuximab are
encouraging, and eligible patients should be enrolled in these85 clinical trials when
possible.
Is There Sufficient Evidence in Favor of the Use of Exclusive Chemotherapy for Glottic
Cancer?
Since the introduction of platinum-based chemotherapy, and more recently with
taxane-based treatments, it has become clear that glottic cancer is chemosensitive,
with one-fourth to one-third of patients being complete responders and one-half to
two-thirds being partial responders.2,84,91–93 Adding chemotherapy to locoregional
treatments (surgery and/or radiation therapy) has been shown to improve overall
survival in head and neck cancer.94,95 Recent level 1 evidence (a meta-analysis of
the effects of chemotherapy by tumor site, including 3216 patients with laryngeal
cancer) has shown a significant improvement in overall survival with concomitant che-
moradiation, for an absolute 5-year survival benefit of 4.5%.81
In light of the advantages of chemotherapy, and the high response rates, 7 published
studies have investigated using chemotherapy exclusively for treating early-stage,
mid-stage, and advanced-stage glottic cancer.96–102 Five of these studies were retro-
spective studies of complete responders after 3 cycles of induction chemotherapy
(cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil), who then were allowed to decide if they preferred locore-
gional treatment or to pursue chemotherapy (level 4 evidence).96–100 Four studies were
from the same hospital.96–99 Four of the studies included only tumors initially consid-
ered amenable to conservation laryngeal surgery.96,98,99,101 In these studies,
Between 29 and 65 patients were treated with exclusive chemotherapy, for a rate
of local control with chemotherapy alone ranging from 54% to 72% and an ulti-
mate larynx preservation rate ranging from 90% to 100%
Toxicity was acceptable, and no chemotherapy deaths were recorded, but
chemotherapy was prematurely stopped in 1% of patients because of toxicity.
To date, only 2 published studies have prospectively treated all complete

responders with exclusive chemotherapy (level 3 evidence).101,102 The study by Hol-
singer and colleagues101 included 30 patients with stage II to IVa glottic (n 5 14)
or supraglottic (n 5 16) carcinoma considered amenable to conservation laryngeal
surgery:
Eleven patients, 4 with glottic tumors and 7 with supraglottic tumors, were
complete responders after 3 to 4 cycles of chemotherapy (37%), and received
3 more cycles.
Ten of the 11 patients had no locoregional recurrence after a median follow-up of
5 years, for a local control rate with chemotherapy alone of 91% among the
complete responders.
Divi and colleagues102 prospectively studied 32 patients with stage III to IVb laryn-
geal and hypopharyngeal tumors, and
Four patients, 2 with hypopharyngeal cancers and 2 with supraglottic cancers,

were complete responders after 1 cycle and received additional chemotherapy.
All of the patients had recurrences during the additional cycles: 3 in the neck and
1 locally and regionally.
For advanced-stage tumors, exclusive chemotherapy does not provide long-term

locoregional control.
Thus, low-level evidence shows that highly selected patients with early-stage glottic
cancer may undergo complete remission after exclusive chemotherapy; however, the
initial local control rates for these highly selected patients, initially amenable to con-
servation laryngeal surgery, is not better than other conservation protocols using
open surgery, transoral laser resection, or radiation therapy (see earlier in this article).
In addition, we currently have no means of preselecting tumors that are more biolog-
ically susceptible to respond to chemotherapy, so many patients need to be treated
(between 3 and 17103) to select the few complete responders (corresponding to
5.8%–33.0% of patients). Higher-level evidence is needed before exclusive chemo-
therapy can become a standard of care.
What Does the Evidence Say About Follow-up for Patients Treated for Glottic Cancer?
Follow-up aims at early detection of local recurrences, regional recurrences, distant
metastases, metachronous second primaries, and complications of treatment, aiming
to improve oncologic outcomes by early diagnosis of cancer-related events. Routine
follow-up with regular clinical examination is performed in most centers treating laryn-
geal cancer, and most physicians follow patients for at least 5 years.104–106 Routine
screening using panendoscopy, bronchoscopy, esophagoscopy, ultrasound, CT,
and PET are performed less regularly, and there is currently no consensus regarding
1152 Hartl
optimum follow-up, although several guidelines have been published by various pro-
fessional societies.105
For the diagnosis of recurrence, a prospective study by Boysen and col-

leagues107 found that 76% of recurrences (all head and neck sites combined)
occurred in the first 2 years following treatment, and another 11% during the
third year.
de Visscher and Manni108 found that 76% of recurrences, second primaries, or
metastases (cancer-related “events”) occurred within 3 years of initial treatment
(level 3 evidence).
Similarly, prospectively collected data analyzed by Lester and Wight109 found
that 95% of recurrences or second primaries occurred within 2.7 years for
oropharyngeal primaries, 2.3 years for hypopharyngeal primaries, and 4.7 years
for laryngeal primaries (level 2 evidence).
Thus, the best evidence implies that follow-up should be the most intense for the
first 3 to 5 years if one is to diagnose most of the cancer-related events in this
population.
Three published guidelines recommend routine clinical examination at a rate of 19 to
25 visits for the first 5 years (with a skewed distribution toward more frequent exam-
ination during the first 2 or 3 years), based primarily on physician surveys.104,105 This
does not answer the question if detection at routine follow-up improves oncologic
outcomes. Conflicting level 3 evidence exists regarding the outcome if an event is
detected at routine follow-up as compared with events diagnosed in symptomatic
patients on self-referral:
For de Visscher and Manni,108 survival was better in the group of patients whose
event was detected during a routine follow-up visit, whereas
For Ritoe and colleagues110 and Boysen and colleagues,107 no survival differ-
ence was found between these 2 types of patients.
In their comprehensive review of the literature, Manikantan and colleagues105 were

unable to find convincing evidence that routine chest radiographs improved detection
of second primaries or metastases, often revealed by symptoms (level 3 evidence), or
that detection improved survival. They found level 4 evidence that chest CT was more
sensitive than chest radiograph. They concluded that “chest CT should be done in
symptomatic patients.”
For the diagnosis of neck recurrence, ultrasound has been shown to be more sensi-
tive than neck CT, which, in turn, is more sensitive than neck palpation.105 There is no
evidence, however, regarding any improvement in survival or any cost-effectiveness
of routine follow-up neck screening using ultrasound or neck CT to detect regional
recurrences, as compared with routine clinical follow-up of the neck. Level 3 evidence
suggests that routine CT scanning of the neck may provide evidence in favor of recur-
rence earlier than clinical examination, for a proportion of patients (41% in the study by
Hermans and colleagues).111 This does not imply that earlier detection leads to better
outcomes, however.
The high sensitivity (94%), specificity (82%), and negative predictive value (95%) of
PET for detecting local recurrence for head and neck cancers treated by radiation
therapy or chemoradiation has been confirmed by a large meta-analysis published
in 2008 (level 1 evidence).112 There is currently no evidence showing any improvement
in patient outcomes, however, by the routine use of PET. Finally, in the systematic liter-
ature review by Manikantan and colleagues,105 routine follow-up bronchoscopy and
esophagoscopy were found to be “not warranted,” because of the cost, morbidity,

and low rate of second primary tumors diagnosed (2%–6% of patients with laryngeal
cancer, level 3 evidence).
Hypothyroidism, symptomatic or subclinical, in patients treated for head and neck
cancer has a reported prevalence of 5% to 56%, although the actuarial incidence at 10
years may exceed 90%.113 There is only one prospective study of hypothyroidism in
patients treated for head and neck cancer in which the median time to hypothyroidism
was 8 months, and 83% of the cases of hypothyroidism occurred within 1 year of treat-
ment (level 3 evidence).114 Based on these data, current guidelines recommend thyroid
function studies every 6 to 12 months following treatment of head and neck cancers.115
BOTTOM LINE: WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE REALLY SAY ABOUT GLOTTIC CARCINOMA?
We place the highest value on evidence obtained from randomized controlled trials,
which provide the best objective, statistically sound evidence to guide decisions for
treatment of individual patients. Much has been written, however, about the defects
inherent in this approach. Patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials are highly
selected in terms of their tumor, but also in terms of comorbidities. Enrolled patients
more often tend to be white, educated, insured, health-conscious, and younger than
the general population of patients with cancer,116 and the self-selection of patients
for clinical trials may in and of itself constitute a bias toward globally better results
than one could expect in the general population.117
For glottic carcinoma, we have seen that in the randomized controlled trials com-
paring different nonsurgical organ preservation strategies, widely invasive tumors
with extensive tongue base involvement and/or cartilage invasion were excluded.
Thus, we must always be careful when applying the results of these trials to our
general patient population, and regularly reevaluate our outcomes in “real life.”
Treatment choices for early-stage glottic cancer are currently based on low-level
evidence. Conservation surgery (open or transoral laser resection) and radiation
therapy are all still valid options for treating Tis, T1, and selected T2 glottic lesions.
Subjective selection criteria are still the basis for treatment choice for these lesions.
For advanced lesions not amenable to conservation surgery, high-level evidence
favors concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin for nonsurgical organ preservation.
With the increasing use of taxanes and cetuximab, however, the optimal combination
of chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and radiation therapy is currently unknown.
Finally, for large tumors with extensive cartilage and/or tongue base invasion, total
laryngectomy followed by radiation therapy is still the treatment of choice for optimi-
zation of oncologic outcomes.
In the treatment of glottic carcinoma, the evidence in favor of one type of treatment
as opposed to another is globally low level. For now, bias and opinion may still mar
our decision making, even in the context of multidisciplinary tumor boards. The oppor-
tunities for conservation laryngeal surgery depend on the experience and expertise
of the local surgical oncology organ specialists. Guidelines based on expert opinion
may be useful, but generally do not provide details on appropriate criteria for patient
selection for various treatment modalities (particularly conservation laryngeal surgery).
Conservation surgery, and particularly transoral surgery, is often an “à la carte” proce-
dure, and patient heterogeneity can impede coherent evaluation of patient groups.
Prospective surgical registries may improve our options for outcomes analysis
according to tumor subtypes and “atypical” surgeries.118
To optimize patient outcome, current evidence must be combined with experience
of the multidisciplinary team managing these patients,119 along with maintenance of
1154 Hartl
a high regard for the patient-physician relationship, with an honest, open discussion
regarding all of the aspects of different treatment options.
CRITICAL POINTS
Initial workup should include CT and/or MRI of the larynx (level 2 evidence).
Curative treatment for Tis: transoral surgery or radiation therapy. Prefer surgery
for younger patients. Save radiotherapy for failure of a surgical approach (level
3 evidence).
Curative treatment for T1a: surgery (transoral laser surgery or open surgery) or
radiation therapy (level 3).
Curative treatment for T1T2 with AC involvement: surgery (transoral or open)
provides better initial local control and final laryngeal preservation than radiation
therapy (level 3).
Curative treatment for T2: T2 with normal vocal fold mobility may be treated
by surgery or radiation therapy (level 3); surgery provides better outcomes for
tumors with impaired vocal fold mobility as compared with radiation therapy
alone (level 3).
Curative treatment for T3T4: Conservation laryngeal surgery remains an option
for selected tumors (level 4). When a nonsurgical organ preservation strategy
is chosen, concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin provides better outcomes
than radiation therapy alone or induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluo-
rouracil (level 1). Eligible patients should be referred for inclusion in clinical trials
investigating the role of taxanes and cetuximab. For locally advanced tumors,
survival is better with initial total laryngectomy followed by radiation therapy
(level 3).
Follow-up should be performed in the clinic for at least 3 to 5 years to detect
recurrence, second primary tumors, metastases, and late effects of treatment,
although early detection of cancer events has not been sufficiently studied to
prove that follow-up improves oncologic outcomes (level 5).
REFERENCES
1. Elstein AS. On the origins and development of evidence-based medicine and

medical decision making. Inflamm Res 2004;53(Suppl 2):S184–9.
2. Wolf GT, Waun KH, Gross Fischer S, et al. Induction chemotherapy plus radia-
tion compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal
cancer. The Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group.
N Engl J Med 1991;324(24):1685–90.
3. Kirchner JA. Fifteenth Daniel C. Baker, Jr, memorial lecture. What have whole
organ sections contributed to the treatment of laryngeal cancer? Ann Otol Rhinol
Laryngol 1989;98(9):661–7.
4. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group, Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P,
et al. The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based
Medicine; 2011. Available at: http://wwwcebmnet/indexaspx?o55653. Accessed
November 28, 2011.
5. Hartl DM, Landry G, Hans S, et al. Organ preservation surgery for laryngeal
squamous cell carcinoma: low incidence of thyroid cartilage invasion. Laryngo-
scope 2010;120(6):1173–6.
6. Hartl DM, Landry G, Hans S, et al. Thyroid cartilage invasion in early-stage
squamous cell carcinoma involving the anterior commissure. Head Neck 2011.
[Epub ahead of print].
7. Brasnu DF. Supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidopexy in the

management of laryngeal carcinoma. World J Surg 2003;27(7):817–23.
8. Zbaren P, Becker M, Lang H. Pretherapeutic staging of laryngeal carcinoma.
Clinical findings, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging com-
pared with histopathology. Cancer 1996;77(7):1263–73.
9. Zbaren P, Becker M, Lang H. Staging of laryngeal cancer: endoscopy,
computed tomography and magnetic resonance versus histopathology. Eur
Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1997;254(Suppl 1):S117–22.
10. Becker M, Burkhardt K, Dulguerov P, et al. Imaging of the larynx and hypo-
pharynx. Eur J Radiol 2008;66(3):460–79.
11. Becker M, Zbaren P, Laeng H, et al. Neoplastic invasion of the laryngeal carti-
lage: comparison of MR imaging and CT with histopathologic correlation. Radi-
ology 1995;194(3):661–9.
12. Hao SP, Ng SH. Magnetic resonance imaging versus clinical palpation in eval-
uating cervical metastasis from head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2000;123(3):324–7.
13. King AD, Tse GM, Ahuja AT, et al. Necrosis in metastatic neck nodes: diagnostic
accuracy of CT, MR imaging, and US. Radiology 2004;230(3):720–6.
14. Wax MK, Myers LL, Gona JM, et al. The role of positron emission tomography in
the evaluation of the N-positive neck. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129(3):
163–7.
15. Ashraf M, Biswas J, Jha J, et al. Clinical utility and prospective comparison of
ultrasonography and computed tomography imaging in staging of neck metas-
tases in head and neck squamous cell cancer in an Indian setup. Int J Clin
Oncol 2011;16(6):686–93.
16. Rumboldt Z, Gordon L, Bonsall R, et al. Imaging in head and neck cancer. Curr
Treat Options Oncol 2006;7(1):23–34.
17. Sumi M, Kimura Y, Sumi T, et al. Diagnostic performance of MRI relative to CT for
metastatic nodes of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. J Magn Reson
Imaging 2007;26(6):1626–33.
18. Jeong HS, Baek CH, Son YI, et al. Use of integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT to
improve the accuracy of initial cervical nodal evaluation in patients with head
and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2007;29(3):203–10.
19. Adams S, Baum RP, Stuckensen T, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG
PET with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI, US) in lymph node staging
of head and neck cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25(9):1255–60.
20. Le QT, Takamiya R, Shu HK, et al. Treatment results of carcinoma in situ of
the glottis: an analysis of 82 cases. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;
126(11):1305–12.
21. Garcia-Serra A, Hinerman RW, Amdur RJ, et al. Radiotherapy for carcinoma in
situ of the true vocal cords. Head Neck 2002;24(4):390–4.
22. Spayne JA, Warde P, O’Sullivan B, et al. Carcinoma-in-situ of the glottic larynx:
results of treatment with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;
49(5):1235–8.
23. Damm M, Sittel C, Streppel M, et al. Transoral CO2 laser for surgical manage-
ment of glottic carcinoma in situ. Laryngoscope 2000;110(7):1215–21.
24. Sengupta N, Morris CG, Kirwan J, et al. Definitive radiotherapy for carcinoma in
situ of the true vocal cords. Am J Clin Oncol 2010;33(1):94–5.
25. Fein DA, Mendenhall WM, Parsons JT, et al. Carcinoma in situ of the glottic
larynx: the role of radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993;27(2):
379–84.
1156 Hartl
26. Hartl DM, de Mones E, Hans S, et al. Treatment of early-stage glottic cancer by
transoral laser resection. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2007;116(11):832–6.
27. Peretti G, Nicolai P, Piazza C, et al. Oncological results of endoscopic resections
of Tis and T1 glottic carcinomas by carbon dioxide laser. Ann Otol Rhinol Lar-
yngol 2001;110(9):820–6.
28. Smee RI, Meagher NS, Williams JR, et al. Role of radiotherapy in early glottic
carcinoma. Head Neck 2010;32(7):850–9.
29. Nguyen C, Naghibzadeh B, Black MJ, et al. Carcinoma in situ of the glottic
larynx: excision or irradiation? Head Neck 1996;18(3):225–8.
30. Silver CE, Beitler JJ, Shaha AR, et al. Current trends in initial management of
laryngeal cancer: the declining use of open surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
2009;266(9):1333–52.
31. Stoeckli SJ, Schnieper I, Huguenin P, et al. Early glottic carcinoma: treatment
according patient’s preference? Head Neck 2003;25(12):1051–6.
32. 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):759–64.
33. Jones DA, Mendenhall CM, Kirwan J, et al. Radiation therapy for management of
T1-T2 glottic cancer at a private practice. Am J Clin Oncol 2010;33(6):587–90.
34. Higgins KM, Shah MD, Ogaick MJ, et al. Treatment of early-stage glottic cancer:
meta-analysis comparison of laser excision versus radiotherapy. J Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2009;38(6):603–12.
35. Smith JC, Johnson JT, Cognetti DM, et al. Quality of life, functional outcome, and
costs of early glottic cancer. Laryngoscope 2003;113(1):68–76.
36. Goor KM, Peeters AJ, Mahieu HF, et al. Cordectomy by CO2 laser or radio-
therapy for small T1a glottic carcinomas: costs, local control, survival, quality
of life, and voice quality. Head Neck 2007;29(2):128–36.
37. Cragle SP, Brandenburg JH. Laser cordectomy or radiotherapy: cure rates,
communication, and cost. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993;108(6):648–54.
38. Brandenburg JH. Laser cordotomy versus radiotherapy: an objective cost anal-
ysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001;110(4):312–8.
39. Peeters AJ, van Gogh CD, Goor KM, et al. Health status and voice outcome after
treatment for T1a glottic carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2004;261(10):
534–40.
40. Krengli M, Policarpo M, Manfredda I, et al. Voice quality after treatment for T1a
glottic carcinoma—radiotherapy versus laser cordectomy. Acta Oncol 2004;
43(3):284–9.
41. Rydell R, Schalen L, Fex S, et al. Voice evaluation before and after laser excision
vs. radiotherapy of T1A glottic carcinoma. Acta Otolaryngol 1995;115(4):560–5.
42. Remacle M, Eckel HE, Antonelli A, et al. Endoscopic cordectomy. A proposal for
a classification by the Working Committee, European Laryngological Society.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2000;257(4):227–31.
43. Holland JM, Arsanjani A, Liem BJ, et al. Second malignancies in early stage
laryngeal carcinoma patients treated with radiotherapy. J Laryngol Otol 2002;
116(3):190–3.
44. Burns JA, Har-El G, Shapshay S, et al. Endoscopic laser resection of laryngeal
cancer: is it oncologically safe? Position statement from the American Broncho-
Esophagological Association. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009;118(6):399–404.
45. Sachse F, Stoll W, Rudack C. Evaluation of treatment results with regard to initial
anterior commissure involvement in early glottic carcinoma treated by external
partial surgery or transoral laser microresection. Head Neck 2009;31(4):531–7.
46. Chone CT, Yonehara E, Martins JE, et al. Importance of anterior commissure in
recurrence of early glottic cancer after laser endoscopic resection. Arch Otolar-
47. Bradley PJ, Rinaldo A, Suarez C, et al. Primary treatment of the anterior vocal
commissure squamous carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263(10):
879–88.
48. Nozaki M, Furuta M, Murakami Y, et al. Radiation therapy for T1 glottic cancer:
involvement of the anterior commissure. Anticancer Res 2000;20(2B):1121–4.
49. Maheshwar AA, Gaffney CC. Radiotherapy for T1 glottic carcinoma: impact of
anterior commissure involvement. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115(4):298–301.
50. Rodel RM, Steiner W, Muller RM, et al. Endoscopic laser surgery of early glottic
cancer: involvement of the anterior commissure. Head Neck 2009;31(5):583–92.
51. Rucci L, Gallo O, Fini-Storchi O. Glottic cancer involving anterior commissure:
surgery vs radiotherapy. Head Neck 1991;13(5):403–10.
52. Zohar Y, Rahima M, Shvili Y, et al. The controversial treatment of anterior
commissure carcinoma of the larynx. Laryngoscope 1992;102(1):69–72.
53. Bron LP, Soldati D, Zouhair A, et al. Treatment of early stage squamous-cell
carcinoma of the glottic larynx: endoscopic surgery or cricohyoidoepiglottopexy
versus radiotherapy. Head Neck 2001;23(10):823–9.
54. Ambrosch P. The role of laser microsurgery in the treatment of laryngeal cancer.
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;15(2):82–8.
55. Peretti G, Piazza C, Cocco D, et al. Transoral CO(2) laser treatment for T(is)-T(3)
glottic cancer: the University of Brescia experience on 595 patients. Head Neck
2010;32(8):977–83.
56. Laccourreye O, Laccourreye L, Garcia D, et al. Vertical partial laryngectomy
versus supracricoid partial laryngectomy for selected carcinomas of the true
vocal cord classified as T2N0. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000;109(10 Pt 1):
965–71.
57. Peretti G, Piazza C, Mensi MC, et al. Endoscopic treatment of cT2 glottic carci-
noma: prognostic impact of different pT subcategories. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
2005;114(8):579–86.
58. Peretti G, Piazza C, Bolzoni A, et al. Analysis of recurrences in 322 Tis, T1, or T2
glottic carcinomas treated by carbon dioxide laser. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
2004;113(11):853–8.
59. Mendenhall WM, Amdur RJ, Morris CG, et al. T1–T2N0 squamous cell carci-
noma of the glottic larynx treated with radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2001;
19(20):4029–36.
60. Gourin CG, Conger BT, Sheils WC, et al. The effect of treatment on survival
in patients with advanced laryngeal carcinoma. Laryngoscope 2009;119(7):
1312–7.
61. Marandas P, Hartl DM, Charffedine I, et al. T2 laryngeal carcinoma with impaired
mobility: subtypes with therapeutic implications. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
2002;259(2):87–90.
62. Motta G, Esposito E, Motta S, et al. CO(2) laser surgery in the treatment of glottic
cancer. Head Neck 2005;27(7):566–73 [discussion: 573–4].
63. Gallo A, de Vincentiis M, Manciocco V, et al. CO2 laser cordectomy for early-
stage glottic carcinoma: a long-term follow-up of 156 cases. Laryngoscope
2002;112(2):370–4.
64. Tucker HM, Benninger MS, Roberts JK, et al. Near-total laryngectomy with
epiglottic reconstruction. Long-term results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
1989;115(11):1341–4.
1158 Hartl
65. Dinshaw KA, Sharma V, Agarwal JP, et al. Radiation therapy in T1-T2 glottic
carcinoma: influence of various treatment parameters on local control/complica-
tions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48(3):723–35.
66. Howell-Burke D, Peters LJ, Goepfert H, et al. T2 glottic cancer. Recurrence,
salvage, and survival after definitive radiotherapy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 1990;116(7):830–5.
67. Karim AB, Kralendonk JH, Yap LY, et al. Heterogeneity of stage II glottic carci-
noma and its therapeutic implications. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1987;13(3):
313–7.
68. Harwood AR, DeBoer G. Prognostic factors in T2 glottic cancer. Cancer 1980;
45(5):991–5.
69. de Bree R, Leemans CR, Silver CE, et al. Paratracheal lymph node dissection in
cancer of the larynx, hypopharynx, and cervical esophagus: the need for guide-
lines. Head Neck 2011;33(6):912–6.
70. Laccourreye O, Diaz EM Jr, Bassot V, et al. A multimodal strategy for the treat-
ment of patients with T2 invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the glottis. Cancer
1999;85(1):40–6.
71. Chevalier D, Laccourreye O, Brasnu D, et al. Cricohyoidoepiglottopexy for glot-
tic carcinoma with fixation or impaired motion of the true vocal cord: 5-year onco-
logic results with 112 patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1997;106(5):364–9.
72. Smee R, Bridger GP, Williams J, et al. Early glottic carcinoma: results of treat-
ment by radiotherapy. Australas Radiol 2000;44(1):53–9.
73. Chera BS, Amdur RJ, Morris CG, et al. T1N0 to T2N0 squamous cell carcinoma
of the glottic larynx treated with definitive radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 2010;78(2):461–6.
74. Pantel M, Wittekindt C, Altendorf-Hofmann A, et al. Diversity of treatment of
T2N0 glottic cancer of the larynx: lessons to learn from epidemiological cancer
registry data. Acta Otolaryngol 2011;131(11):1205–13.
75. Wierzbicka M, Leszczynska M, Mlodkowska A, et al. The impact of prelaryngeal
node metastases on early glottic cancer treatment results. Eur Arch Otorhinolar-
yngol 2012;269(1):193–9.
76. Dufour X, Hans S, De Mones E, et al. Local control after supracricoid partial
laryngectomy for "advanced" endolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma classi-
fied as T3. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130(9):1092–9.
77. Laccourreye O, Salzer SJ, Brasnu D, et al. Glottic carcinoma with a fixed
true vocal cord: outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and supracricoid
partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 1996;114(3):400–6.
78. Vilaseca I, Bernal-Sprekelsen M, Luis Blanch J. Transoral laser microsurgery for
T3 laryngeal tumors: prognostic factors. Head Neck 2010;32(7):929–38.
79. Hinni ML, Salassa JR, Grant DG, et al. Transoral laser microsurgery for advanced
laryngeal cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133(12):1198–204.
80. Forastiere AA, Goepfert H, Maor M, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and radio-
therapy for organ preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med
2003;349(22):2091–8.
81. Blanchard P, Baujat B, Holostenco V, et al. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in
head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): a comprehensive analysis by tumour site.
Radiother Oncol 2011;100(1):33–40.
82. Hoffman HT, Porter K, Karnell LH, et al. Laryngeal cancer in the United States:
changes in demographics, patterns of care, and survival. Laryngoscope 2006;
116(9 Pt 2 Suppl 111):1–13.
83. Rades D, Schroeder U, Bajrovic A, et al. Radiochemotherapy versus surgery

plus radio(chemo)therapy for stage T3/T4 larynx and hypopharynx cancer:
results of a matched-pair analysis. Eur J Cancer 2011;47(18):2729–34.
84. Pointreau Y, Garaud P, Chapet S, et al. Randomized trial of induction chemo-
therapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil with or without docetaxel for larynx pres-
ervation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101(7):498–506.
85. Posner MR, Norris CM, Wirth LJ, et al. Sequential therapy for the locally
advanced larynx and hypopharynx cancer subgroup in TAX 324: survival, sur-
gery, and organ preservation. Ann Oncol 2009;20(5):921–7.
86. Paccagnella A, Mastromauro C, D’Amanzo P, et al. Induction chemotherapy
before chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: the
future? Oncologist 2010;15(Suppl 3):8–12.
87. Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locore-
gionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5-year survival data from a phase
3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab-induced rash and survival.
Lancet Oncol 2010;11(1):21–8.
88. Haddad RI, Tishler RB, Norris C, et al. Phase I study of C-TPF in patients with
locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol
2009;27(27):4448–53.
89. Argiris A, Heron DE, Smith RP, et al. Induction docetaxel, cisplatin, and cetuxi-
mab followed by concurrent radiotherapy, cisplatin, and cetuximab and mainte-
nance cetuximab in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer. J Clin
Oncol 2010;28(36):5294–300.
90. Chen AY, Halpern M. Factors predictive of survival in advanced laryngeal
cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133(12):1270–6.
91. Urba S, Wolf G, Eisbruch A, et al. Single-cycle induction chemotherapy selects
patients with advanced laryngeal cancer for combined chemoradiation: a new
treatment paradigm. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(4):593–8.
92. Rapidis AD, Trichas M, Stavrinidis E, et al. Induction chemotherapy followed by
concurrent chemoradiation in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head
and neck: final results from a phase II study with docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluo-
rouracil with a four-year follow-up. Oral Oncol 2006;42(7):675–84.
93. Vermorken JB. A new look at induction chemotherapy in locally advanced head
and neck cancer. Oncologist 2010;15(Suppl 3):1–2.
94. Pignon JP, le Maitre A, Maillard E, et al. Meta-analysis of chemotherapy in head
and neck cancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17,346
patients. Radiother Oncol 2009;92(1):4–14.
95. Pignon JP, Bourhis J, Domenge C, et al. Chemotherapy added to locoregional
treatment for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma: three meta-analyses
of updated individual data. MACH-NC Collaborative Group. Meta-Analysis of
Chemotherapy on Head and Neck Cancer. Lancet 2000;355(9208):949–55.
96. Laccourreye O, Brasnu D, Bassot V, et al. Cisplatin-fluorouracil exclusive
chemotherapy for T1-T3N0 glottic squamous cell carcinoma complete clinical
responders: five-year results. J Clin Oncol 1996;14(8):2331–6.
97. Laccourreye O, Veivers D, Hans S, et al. Chemotherapy alone with curative intent
in patients with invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the pharyngolarynx classi-
fied as T1-T4N0M0 complete clinical responders. Cancer 2001;92(6):1504–11.
98. Laccourreye O, Veivers D, Bassot V, et al. Analysis of local recurrence in
patients with selected T1-3N0M0 squamous cell carcinoma of the true vocal
cord managed with a platinum-based chemotherapy-alone regimen for cure.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111(4):315–21 [discussion: 321–2].
1160 Hartl
99. Vachin F, Hans S, Atlan D, et al. Long-term results of exclusive chemotherapy

for glottic squamous cell carcinoma complete clinical responders after induc-
tion chemotherapy. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 2004;121(3):140–7 [in
French].
100. Bonfils P, Trotoux J, Bassot V. Chemotherapy alone in laryngeal squamous cell
carcinoma. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121(2):143–8.
101. Holsinger FC, Kies MS, Diaz EM Jr, et al. Durable long-term remission with
chemotherapy alone for stage II to IV laryngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;
27(12):1976–82.
102. Divi V, Worden FP, Prince ME, et al. Chemotherapy alone for organ preservation
in advanced laryngeal cancer. Head Neck 2010;32(8):1040–7.
103. Hartl DM, Brasnu DF. Chemotherapy alone for glottic carcinoma: a need for
higher-level evidence. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009;118(8):543–5.
104. Morton RP, Hay KD, Macann A. On completion of curative treatment of head and
neck cancer: why follow up? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;12(2):
142–6.
105. Manikantan K, Khode S, Dwivedi RC, et al. Making sense of post-treatment
surveillance in head and neck cancer: when and what of follow-up. Cancer Treat
Rev 2009;35(8):744–53.
106. Joshi A, Calman F, O’Connell M, et al. Current trends in the follow-up of head
and neck cancer patients in the UK. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2010;22(2):
114–8.
107. Boysen M, Lovdal O, Tausjo J, et al. The value of follow-up in patients treated for
squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Eur J Cancer 1992;28(2–3):
426–30.
108. de Visscher AV, Manni JJ. Routine long-term follow-up in patients treated with
curative intent for squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx, pharynx, and oral
cavity. Does it make sense? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;120(9):
934–9.
109. Lester SE, Wight RG. ’When will I see you again?’ Using local recurrence data to
develop a regimen for routine surveillance in post-treatment head and neck
cancer patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34(6):546–51.
110. Ritoe SC, Krabbe PF, Kaanders JH, et al. Value of routine follow-up for patients
cured of laryngeal carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101(6):1382–9.
111. Hermans R, Pameijer FA, Mancuso AA, et al. Laryngeal or hypopharyngeal
squamous cell carcinoma: can follow-up CT after definitive radiation therapy
be used to detect local failure earlier than clinical examination alone? Radiology
2000;214(3):683–7.
112. Isles MG, McConkey C, Mehanna HM. A systematic review and meta-analysis of
the role of positron emission tomography in the follow up of head and neck
squamous cell carcinoma following radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Clin
Otolaryngol 2008;33(3):210–22.
113. Miller M, Agarwal A. Hypothyroidism in postradiation head and neck cancer
patients: incidence, complications, and management. Curr Opin Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2009;17(2):1111–5.
114. Sinard R, Tobin E, Mazzaferri E, et al. Hypothyroidism after treatment for nonthy-
roid head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol 2000;126(5):652–7.
115. Network NCC. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Head and neck
cancers. NCCNorg; 2011. version 2.2011.
116. Al Refaie W, Vickers S, Zhong W, et al. Cancer trials versus the real world in the
United States. Ann Surg 2011;254(3):438–42.
117. Clark A, Lammiman M, Goode K, et al. Is taking part in clinical trials good for
your health? A cohort study. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11(11):1078–83.
118. Korenkov M, Troidl H, Sauerland S. Individualized surgery in the time of
evidence-based medicine. Ann Surg 2011. [Epub ahead of print].
119. Marshall J. Surgical decision-making: integrating evidence, inference, and
experience. Surg Clin North Am 2006;86(1):201–15.
M a n a g e m e n t o f Wel l -
D i ffe re n t i a t e d T h y ro i d C a n c e r
Selena Liao, MD*, Maisie Shindo, MD
KEYWORDS
Evidence-based otolaryngology Well-differentiated thyroid cancer
Follicular carcinoma Papillary carcinoma Neck dissection
KEY POINTS
The following points list the level of evidence as based on grading of the Oxford Centre for
Evidence-Based Medicine. Additional critical points are provided, and points here are
Clinical staging with appropriate imaging can allow for planning of surgical management
and should include preoperative ultrasonography, or alternative methods of computed
tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography. Evidence
level A.
Suspicious lymph nodes should be assessed for malignancy using ultrasound-guided fine-
needle aspiration. Evidence level A.
Tumors larger than 1 cm should be resected via near-total or total thyroidectomy.
Evidence level A.
Tumors smaller than 1 cm may be initially managed via total lobectomy. Evidence level A.
All presurgically involved levels of lymph nodes should be resected via compartment
resection rather than berry picking. Evidence level A.
Lateral neck involvement warrants compartment resection of at least levels II-A, III, and IV.
Evidence level A.
OVERVIEW
Thyroid cancer is the most common of all endocrine cancers. Well-differentiated

thyroid cancer comprises the majority of thyroid cancers, about 90%, and includes
both papillary and follicular carcinomas. Most of these, about 85%, are of the papillary
subtype. The incidence of thyroid cancer has been reported to be increasing, mostly
due to increased detection rates, with one study showing a 2.4-fold increase from 3.6
per 100,000 in 1973 to 8.7 per 100,000 in 2002.1 Overall mortality in this study was low,
at 0.5 deaths per 100,000.
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Sciences Univer-
sity, 3181 Southwest Sam Jackson Park Road, SJH01, Portland, OR 97239, USA
E-mail address: liao@ohsu.edu

1164 Liao & Shindo
In 2006, a task force within the American Thyroid Association (ATA) developed a set
of guidelines for the management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer.
These guidelines were most recently revised in 2009.2 Nevertheless, not all of the
recommendations have Grade A evidence and there are still many areas of contro-
versy regarding surgical management.
EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THYROID CANCER

Staging
Accurate staging is important in determining the prognosis and tailoring the treatment of
patients with differentiated thyroid cancer. Unlike with many other tumor types, the pres-
ence of distant metastasis, for example in lungs and bones, does not obviate primary
resection (thyroidectomy) because metastatic disease may respond to radioactive iodine
therapy (RAI) after surgical removal of neck disease.3 Surgery comprises removal of all
thyroid tissue along with the primary tumor, as well as that of regional nodal disease,
and is one of the most important initial treatments. Complete resection of the thyroid gland
and locoregional disease is particularly important for facilitating RAI for metastatic
disease. Furthermore, patients having 5 or more clinically apparent metastases, a metas-
tasis greater than 3 cm, or extranodal tumor extension were found to have a more adverse
prognosis than those having none of these features.4 Therefore, it is important to assess
the extent of local disease and regional lymph node involvement before surgery.
Imaging: Ultrasonography
Preoperative ultrasonography is the most important imaging modality in the evaluation
of thyroid nodules and thyroid cancer. The ATA Surgery Working Group guidelines
recommend ultrasonography of the lateral neck to assess for metastatic nodes
when thyroid cancer is diagnosed.2 Ultrasonography identifies suspicious cervical
adenopathy in the setting of thyroid malignancy. The sensitivity of detecting metastatic
nodes that may alter overall management ranges from 20% to 31%.5,6 Sonographic
features suggestive of metastatic lymph nodes are:
Cystic change
Calcifications
Loss of the fatty hilus
A rounded rather than oval shape
Hypoechogenicity
Increased vascularity
Of these, detection of loss of the fatty hilus is 100% sensitive, but has very low spec-
ificity (29%).7,8 The only criterion with high sensitivity as well as relatively high speci-
ficity is peripheral vascularity (86% sensitivity, 82% specificity). All other potential
criteria have sensitivity of less than 60%, and are thus inadequate for use as a single
criterion for the identification of malignancy.9
In a series of 3874 patients, Ito and colleagues4 investigated the diagnostic accu-
racy of ultrasonography for lateral node metastasis in patients who underwent thera-
peutic or prophylactic modified neck dissection, reporting a specificity of 95% and
a sensitivity of 43%. The presence of certain features, while low in sensitivity, can
be highly specific for metastasis. For example, in a patient with known papillary thyroid
cancer, the presence of cystic areas or punctate microcalcifications in a node are
virtually diagnostic of metastasis (100% specificity). A lymph node short axis of less
than 5 mm is also highly specific for metastasis (96%). Thus, an ultrasound scan
can potentially alter the surgical approach in as many as 20% of patients.10,11
Well-Differentiated Thyroid Cancer 1165
Imaging: Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Positron Emission

Tomography
The limitations of ultrasonography are that evaluation is uniquely operator dependent,
and it cannot easily visualize retropharyngeal, deep paraesophageal, or mediastinal
nodes. Therefore, alternative imaging procedures, such as computed tomography
(CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET),
may be preferable in some clinical settings.12,13 However, the sensitivities of these
studies for the detection of cervical lymph node metastases are all relatively low
(30%–40%).14,15 Of the 3 modalities, CT with contrast is probably the most sensitive.
The disadvantage of obtaining a contrast CT is that the iodine load necessitates
a delay in any planned subsequent RAI, often beyond 3 months postoperatively.
Nevertheless, these alternative imaging modalities are necessary for assessing the
presence of deep cervical nodes that ultrasonography cannot detect, as well as the
extent of invasive tumors, such as with invasion of the trachea, involvement of esoph-
agus, and encasement or invasion of major vessels.
Laryngoscopy, Esophagoscopy, and Tracheoscopy

In addition, laryngoscopy, esophagoscopy, and tracheoscopy may also be necessary
in the assessment of large, rapidly growing, retrosternal, or invasive tumors to deter-
mine the possibility of involvement of extrathyroidal tissues.
Biopsy
When a suspicious lymph node is identified, malignancy should be confirmed by
ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) if it will change the extent of the oper-
ative procedure. If the node is very small or cystic, it may be difficult to attain a suffi-
cient sample for cytologic analysis, in which case the needle washout from the
aspirate can also be sent for a thyroglobulin level. Elevated thyroglobulin from an
FNA washout, even in a noncellular or hypocellular nondiagnostic aspirate, can
confirm metastasis. This FNA measurement of thyroglobulin is valid even in patients
with circulating thyroglobulin autoantibodies.16,17
EVIDENCE-BASED SURGICAL TECHNIQUE FOR THYROID CANCER

Extent of Resection
Once the diagnosis of well-differentiated thyroid cancer has been established, the
primary treatment modality is surgical resection. The current ATA guidelines recom-
mend near-total or total thyroidectomy for all tumor sizes greater than 1 cm.2 Regarding
less extensive surgery, studies have shown increased recurrence and decreased
survival rates in the patient population who undergo subtotal thyroidectomy.18,19
One argument for total thyroidectomy over lobectomy is the risk of thyroid cancer in
the contralateral lobe. Several studies have demonstrated that of patients who origi-
nally underwent hemithyroidectomy and then subsequent completion thyroidectomy,
the incidence of papillary thyroid cancer in the remaining lobe was found to be
between 35% and 55%.20–24 Even more compelling is evidence that patients with
larger tumors who undergo lobectomy rather than total thyroidectomy fare worse in
terms of recurrence and survival. A retrospective study by Hay and colleagues25
that examined 2444 cases over 60 years showed that the recurrence and death rate
was higher during the initial decade, in which the majority of surgical resections
were lobectomies rather than total thyroidectomies, implying that lobectomy alone
may be insufficient. Furthermore, an even larger study by Bilimoria and colleagues26
in 2007 of 52,173 patients in the National Cancer database demonstrated higher
1166 Liao & Shindo
recurrence rates and lower survival rates in those patients with tumors larger than
1 cm who underwent lobectomy only. This finding was maintained even in the subset
of patients whose tumors ranged in size from 1 to 2 cm.
Microcarcinoma Versus Macrocarcinoma

For tumors less than 1 cm in size at diagnosis, however, many studies have indicated that
lobectomy alone may have equivalent outcomes to more extensive resection, and may
therefore be the initial surgery of choice.27 In another study, Hay’s group28 reexamined
nearly the same patient population over a 60-year period, focusing on those with tumors
less than 1 cm in size, and found no significant difference in recurrence and survival rates
between those undergoing lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy. Even the Bilimoria
study did not find a difference in recurrence or survival rates in those patients undergoing
either lobectomy or total thyroidectomy with tumors smaller than 1 cm.26
A more recent study by Ogilvie and colleagues,29 however, raises the question of
whether the “less than 1 cm” category of microcarcinoma should be further subdi-
vided. These investigators retrospectively reviewed 130 records of node-negative
patients with tumors smaller than 1 cm and found that when subdivided into a 6- to
10-mm group and a less than 6-mm group, a larger tumor size was still significantly
associated with higher rates of adverse pathologic features and central node posi-
tivity. Nevertheless, there remains a lack of evidence to show whether lobectomy
only in the 6- to 10-mm group results in any increase in recurrence or mortality rates
in comparison with total thyroidectomy.
Tumor Involvement of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve

Invasive well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma is uncommon, but does occur in about
16% of patients.30 Thyroid surgeons strive to avoid damage to the recurrent laryngeal
nerves during routine operations; however, in cases where local disease is found to
involve the nerve, there is some question as to how aggressively one should resect.
The recurrent laryngeal nerve has been found to be involved in 33% to 61% of invasive
thyroid cancers and is the most commonly involved nerve in the central compart-
ment.30–34 Recurrent laryngeal nerve involvement, however, may not predict the
same morbidity or mortality as invasion of other structures. Chan and colleagues35 re-
ported high long-term survival rates in patients with known preoperative vocal cord
paralysis and complete nerve transection caused by gross involvement. McCaffrey
and colleagues30 noted that invasion of the recurrent laryngeal nerve did not indepen-
dently affect survival rates, in contrast to invasion of other structures, such as the
trachea and esophagus, which independently decreased survival. McCaffrey’s group
argues for incomplete excision and treatment of residual disease with adjuvant RAI, as
data have not shown complete excision to provide a survival benefit.36 The develop-
ment and use of adjunctive RAI has played a large role in allowing more surgical
discretion regarding the extent of resection and preservation of vocal cord function
despite nerve involvement.
In a previous Otolaryngologic Clinics review on the management of invasive thyroid
cancer, Urken37 noted that several factors should play a role in the determination of
surgical extent:
Preoperative preexisting vocal cord paralysis as documented by laryngoscopic

examination
Involvement of the contralateral recurrent laryngeal nerve
Tumor histology
Likelihood of disease response to RAI
In most cases, all attempts at nerve preservation should be performed with resection of
obvious gross tumor. If the tumor can be dissected off of the nerve, the nerve can be left
intact. However, if the tumor encases the nerve and resection is impossible without nerve
sacrifice, especially in cases of known ipsilateral preoperative paralysis, the nerve should
be resected. In cases of known contralateral preoperative paralysis, however, the poten-
tial morbidity from ipsilateral sacrifice and resulting bilateral vocal cord paralysis with
possible need for tracheostomy may reasonably cause one to decide against full nerve
resection. Also of note are several studies that have shown the possibility of recovery
of vocal cord function after tumor resection in cases where nerve involvement was in
the form of compression rather than infiltration.36,38 Chiang and colleagues39 have shown
that extensive dissection of the recurrent laryngeal nerve can be performed with relatively
low rates of temporary nerve palsy, and in their particular study, no cases of permanent
palsy. Complete resection, however, as shown by Nishida and colleagues,33 results in
a high rate of permanent paralysis, even despite attempts at reanastomosis.
If there is need for recurrent laryngeal nerve sacrifice, rehabilitation procedures such
as immediate reinnervation can be performed if sufficient distal stump remains for
anastomosis. If direct reanastomosis is not possible because of a large gap, anasto-
mosis of ansa cervicalis or ansa hypoglossi to the distal stump can be performed.
Nerve grafting using a portion of the ansa cervicalis is another option. If accidental
transection of the recurrent laryngeal nerve occurs during any operation, immediate
repair is recommended to preserve muscle tone to laryngeal muscles, which can facil-
itate improvement in voice rehabilitation therapy.
Central Neck Dissection
The 2009 ATA guidelines provide recommendations regarding central neck dissection as
an adjunct operation for thyroid cancer.2 These guidelines define central neck dissection
as “at a minimum. consist[ing of] removal of the prelaryngeal, pretracheal, and paratra-
cheal lymph nodes.[either] unilateral or bilateral.”40 The central neck compartment
consists of level VI, and occasionally level VII, as defined by the Memorial Sloan-
Kettering system.40 The superior boundary is the hyoid bone and the lateral boundaries,
the carotid arteries. The definition for the inferior border is somewhat variable between the
sternal notch or the innominate artery. Level VI is the main zone of lymphatic drainage for
the majority of thyroid cancers. Those involving the upper pole, pyramidal lobe, and
isthmus may also drain to levels II and III of the lateral neck. The lateral portion of the hemi-
thyroid lobe may drain toward lateral neck levels III and IV.41
The ATA guidelines recommend that therapeutic central-compartment dissection of
level VI be performed for all patients with known clinical involvement of either the
central or lateral neck compartments.2 However, in patients without evidence of nodal
disease, the choice of whether to do an elective central neck dissection at the time of
initial cancer resection is controversial. The ATA guidelines give only a C recommen-
dation for elective central neck dissection in “patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma
with clinically uninvolved central neck lymph nodes, especially for advanced primary
tumors.”2 Likewise, they give a C rating for “thyroidectomy without prophylactic
central neck dissection.[in patients with] small (T1–T2), noninvasive, clinically
node-negative papillary thyroid carcinoma and most follicular cancer,” in recognition
that the current evidence is not strong either for or against the procedure, with only
expert opinion to guide which groups of patients might benefit the most.
Central Neck Dissection in the Setting of Known Nodal Involvement

The central compartment is the most likely region of nodal recurrence.42,43 Within the
central compartment lymphatic drainage tends to flow to the ipsilateral side, and there
1168 Liao & Shindo
is a higher rate of positive nodes found in the ipsilateral central compartment versus
the contralateral side or the lateral neck.
It is rare to find patients with clinical evidence of lateral involvement without central
involvement, but skip metastases can occur. Lateral node metastasis has been shown
to have an independent correlation predicting central metastasis.44 Roh and
colleagues45 performed a review of 22 patients who presented with lateral neck recur-
rences, none of whom had had previous central neck dissections with their initial
thyroidectomies. At reoperation, elective central neck dissection showed 86% of
patients to have central metastases, most frequently in the ipsilateral paratracheal
compartment.
A study by Leboulleux and colleagues46 regarding prognostic factors for persistent
or recurrent disease in patients with locally advanced thyroid cancer at the time of
diagnosis found that the presence of metastasis, specifically to the central compart-
ment, significantly increased the risk of persistent disease after RAI.
Lymph node positivity has been shown in many studies to affect the rate of recur-
rence in differentiated thyroid cancer.
Harwood and colleagues47 compared the records of well-differentiated thyroid

cancer patients, half of whom were N0 at time of diagnosis, and found that there
were significantly more recurrences in patients with nodal involvement than in
those without.
Mazzaferri and Jhiang48 looked at 1355 patients over 40 years and discovered
the presence of cervical node metastases to significantly correlate with higher
recurrence rates at 30 years, regardless of cancer subtype.
The long-term study by Hay and colleagues28 on patients with papillary thyroid
microcarcinoma also found that recurrence rates were higher in node-positive
patients, with more than 80% of all recurrences localizing to regional neck nodes.
Furthermore, several studies have also indicated lymph node positivity to have an
effect on survival. In a large study of 9904 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology,
and End Results (SEER) database, 77% of whom were node negative on presentation,
cervical lymph node metastasis had a risk ratio of 1.34 on overall survival rates and
was statistically significant.49 This study refuted a previous study in 2003 that used
the same database and did not find positive cervical nodes to affect mortality.50
Yet there are other studies showing that cervical node metastases have an indepen-
dently significant effect.
Harwood’s group47 also found that when matching for age, nodal metastasis also
resulted in a worse survival prognosis, especially in older populations.
Another study by Scheumann and colleagues51 confirmed a decrease in survival
for node-positive patients, even when controlling for age, tumor invasion, and
distant metastasis.
In addition, a more recent study by Lundgren and colleagues52 performed a large
population-based study of 5123 patients that showed cervical metastases to
have an odds ratio of 2.5 on mortality, even after adjusting for TNM stage.
Finally, a 2010 study by Grant and colleagues53 examined 420 patients who
underwent thyroidectomy with or without neck dissection based on the 4 recom-
mendations set out by the 2009 ATA guidelines for management of thyroid
cancer, and found only a 5% nodal recurrence rate in this group.
The evidence also supports the recommendation for compartment-oriented central

compartment dissection of the involved compartments rather than “berry picking”
when metastatic disease is identified in the central compartment either radiogra-

phically or intraoperatively. A study by Musacchio and colleagues54 demonstrated
increased local recurrence rates in patients whose neck disease was managed only
through berry picking of visualized metastases rather than thorough neck dissections.
Role of Prophylactic or Elective Central Neck Dissection

Restaging
Proponents of the procedure point to the high rate of positive nodes found in otherwise
clinically node-negative patients, with several studies finding rates between 31% and
64%.44,55–58 Tumor size does not seem to affect these rates, with percentages remain-
ing high in studies that looked at patients with microcarcinoma, as well as those with
tumors greater than 1 cm in size. Finding positive nodes during prophylactic central
neck dissection can significantly affect future treatment plans for patients. For
example, it has been found to result in a high rate of restaging and adjustment of post-
surgical therapy, particularly RAI.
In one study by Shindo and colleagues,56 27% of patients age 45 years or older
who underwent the procedure were reclassified from Stage I/II to Stage III.
Hughes and colleagues59 found similar results, with upstaging of 28.6% of
patients, resulting in an increase in the dose of postsurgical RAI from 30 mCi
to 150 mCi.
By contrast, more accurate staging through lymph node status can also decrease
the number of patients who undergo RAI, a treatment that carries its own risk of
complications and side effects including, for example, abdominal discomfort, neck
tenderness, salivary dysfunction, and decreased tear production. A retrospective
study from France of elective central neck dissection in clinically N0 patients showed
that lymph node status affected 30.5% of cases, with half of them resulting in the deci-
sion not to treat with RAI in patients who would have originally qualified because of
tumor size, but who were found to have no operative histopathologic evidence of posi-
tive nodes.60
Thyroglobulin concentrations
Central neck dissection may also reduce the follow-up burden for recurrence surveil-
lance in some patients. There are studies that have shown patients with papillary
thyroid cancer who undergo central neck dissection to have lower rates of postoper-
ative thyroglobulin concentrations regardless of original tumor size.
One Australian study of papillary thyroid carcinoma patients with tumors larger
than 1 cm found that those who underwent elective central neck dissection in
addition to total thyroidectomy had significantly lower postoperative stimulated
serum thyroglobulin levels.61 These patients also had a higher percentage of
undetectable thyroglobulin at 6-month follow-up.
Another study from Korea, on patients with papillary thyroid microcarcinoma,
similarly found a significant reduction in the postoperative stimulated serum
thyroglobulin level before RAI treatment.62
Complications
On the other hand, opponents of elective central neck dissection state that the rate of
complications is higher than when thyroidectomy is performed alone. Furthermore, the
procedure has not yet been shown to provide a conclusive long-term reduction in
recurrence rates or change in survival rates. In this regard, better data on long-term
1170 Liao & Shindo
outcomes need to be shown before the additional operative time, costs, and potential
risks to patients can be justified.
The most common complications associated with central elective neck dissection
are identical to thyroidectomy alone:
Unintentional parathyroid removal
Hypocalcemia
Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury
Chyle leak
Hematoma
It might be expected that patients undergoing additional neck dissection may have
increased rates of parathyroid autotransplantation, resulting from the larger resection
area and the parathyroid gland being often difficult to discern from lymph tissue.
Indeed, this complication is noted to be significant in several studies.55,59,61 Not
surprisingly, then, many studies have also shown higher rates of transient hypocal-
cemia, usually defined as symptoms of hypocalcemia or a calcium level under the
normal range for less than 6 months, to be increased after central neck dissection is
added to thyroidectomy.58,63,64
Regarding complications in patients undergoing reoperation for recurrence, studies
have shown overall complication rates to be low.
Chao and colleagues65 performed a retrospective review of 115 patients and

found only a 5.2% rate of transient hypoparathyroidism and a 1.7% rate each
of permanent hypoparathyroidism and permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve
injury.
A study by Kim and colleagues66 also found no new cases of recurrent laryngeal
nerve injury in patients undergoing reoperation.
Recurrence
As noted, although studies have shown patients with central neck dissection to have
reduced thyroglobulin levels and decreased overall recurrence rates as defined by
rising thyroglobulin or positive radioiodine scan, there are currently few studies that
show a significant difference in recurrence between patients who receive neck dissec-
tion and those who do not.
The same study by Leboulleux and colleagues46 showing central neck nodes to be
a risk factor for persistent disease did not find them to also be significant for recurrence.
The study by Mazzaferri and Jhiang48 that also indicated nodal disease to nega-
tively affect survival only found this to be significant for patients with the follicular
subtype and not for other thyroid cancers.
In a study from Korea by So and colleagues67 that found a reduction in postop-
erative thyroglobulin levels with elective central neck dissection, this difference
disappeared after RAI therapy and, at 3-year follow-up, no significant difference
in locoregional control rates was found.
Even the study from the Mayo Clinic that showed only a 5% recurrence rate in
patients undergoing central neck dissection did not compare this rate with that
of those patients who did not have the additional procedure.53
Of note, Leboulleux’s group46 also found overall survival rates in their patients to
be high, 99% at 10 years, regardless of having undergone neck dissection or not.
Some surgeons have claimed that their experience in thyroid surgery allows their
clinical judgment to decide which patients require central neck dissection, using
preoperative and intraoperative information. A study by Shen and colleagues68 found

that a smaller percentage of patients who underwent thyroidectomy alone at their
institution developed locoregional nodal recurrences, with more of them having
disease-free status, when compared with those who underwent both thyroidectomy
and central neck dissection. Their conclusion was that their surgeons were able to
correctly identify those patient groups that would not benefit from additional neck
dissection, thus avoiding an unnecessary increased risk of operative complications.
Reoperation
In addition, in contrast to other studies that have shown higher rates of surgical
complications in patients undergoing reoperation in the neck for recurrence compared
with neck dissection done at initial thyroidectomy, Shen and colleagues69 have also
claimed that their rate of reoperative complications is lower than when undertaking
concurrent neck dissection. In another study comparing 189 central neck dissections
done at time of thyroidectomy with 106 reoperations, they found that transient hypo-
calcemia occurred significantly more often in the primary operative group, although
they did not find any differences between groups in rates of hematoma formation,
permanent hypoparathyroidism, or recurrent laryngeal nerve injury.69
Paratracheal node dissection: bilateral versus ipsilateral

Another question among those practicing elective neck dissection concerns the utility
of performing bilateral versus ipsilateral paratracheal node dissection. Studies have
reported very different rates of positivity in contralateral nodes, from 1.4% to 69%,
and there are no studies describing long-term recurrence rates for the contralateral
neck after a unilateral lobe primary tumor.
One study described the routine use of bilateral central neck dissection for all
thyroid cancer diagnoses, with a 25% rate of contralateral neck node positivity.70
Unfortunately, this study did not delineate the percentage of patients who were
clinically node negative at the time of diagnosis. It did, however, note that there
was no significant difference in complication rates regarding recurrent laryngeal
nerve injury or permanent hypocalcemia between those undergoing bilateral
central neck dissection rather than unilateral or no neck dissection. As in other
studies, rates of inadvertent parathyroid removal were higher in the bilateral
group, but with no apparent long-term sequelae.
Shindo and Stern71 compared complication rates between those undergoing
total thyroidectomy with central neck dissection and those without. Their results
showed no increase in rate of hypocalcemia in the group who underwent central
neck dissection. Of note, most patients in their central neck dissection group
underwent ipsilateral paratracheal and pretracheal compartment dissection.
Another study by Roh and colleagues72 on patients who did present with unilat-
eral primary papillary carcinoma and without clinical node positivity found that
9.8% of this population had positive contralateral nodes after elective central
neck dissection, and that ipsilateral metastases independently predicted contra-
lateral metastases.
It has been noted that rates of metastasis to the ipsilateral lateral neck are higher than
to the contralateral central neck. Another Korean study of patients with known lateral
neck nodes found that the rate of contralateral central neck positivity was high, at
34.3%, and was associated with metastasis to all lateral neck levels.73 In this study,
other risk factors for contralateral central metastasis included multifocal primary
tumors, lymphovascular invasion and, unsurprisingly, positive ipsilateral central nodes.
1172 Liao & Shindo
Lateral Neck Dissection

Metastasis to the lateral neck compartments warrants dissection of the involved
compartments, given that positive lymph nodes, as noted previously, increase the
risk of recurrence and decrease survival rates. The 2009 ATA guidelines recommend
that “therapeutic lateral neck compartmental lymph node dissection should be per-
formed for patients with biopsy-proven metastatic lateral cervical lymphadenopathy.”2
As already noted, lateral neck involvement without central neck involvement is rare,
although skip metastases can occur. Chung and colleagues74 found a 7.7% rate of
skip metastases in 7.7% of patients with papillary microcarcinoma who had undergone
both central and lateral neck dissections for preoperative evidence of lateral metastasis.
Risk factors for lateral compartment involvement have been found to include74–78:
Younger patient age
Gender
Tumor multifocality
Tumor calcifications
Upper pole tumor location
Larger tumor size
Extrathyroidal extension
Central node positivity
Ipsilateral involvement of other lateral neck levels
Contralateral lateral involvement
Some investigators recommend more aggressive treatment of the lateral compart-
ment if any positive lymph nodes are found in the central compartment.
Goropoulous and colleagues79 looked at 39 patients who underwent central and

bilateral lateral neck dissections in addition to total thyroidectomy, and found
that of the patients who were found to have positivity in the central neck, 80%
also had concurrent ipsilateral lateral neck disease and 52% were also positive
in the contralateral lateral neck. However, this study included patients with
a variety of tumor sizes, with a trend toward lateral positivity with larger tumors.
Machens and colleagues80 conducted a retrospective review of patients who
underwent both primary and reoperative neck dissections for both papillary
and medullary thyroid cancer, and found that the ipsilateral lateral compartment
was involved almost as frequently as the central compartment for all groups.
By contrast, however, a study by Wang and colleagues81 found that only 3% of
N0 necks were found to have lateral disease, and that risk factors for lateral
recurrence and decreased survival included older patients and tumor size greater
than 4 cm.
Extent of Lateral Neck Dissection
There is also some controversy over whether performing lateral neck dissection
requires full clearance of levels II through V, or whether selective dissection may be
performed based on clinical data. The most common neck levels involved with lateral
metastases are II, III, and IV, with level III having the highest probability of positive
nodes in most studies.75,76,79,82 Ahmadi and colleagues,83 however, found level IV
to be the most commonly involved level in their recent study of 49 patients, with
level IV also being the most common site of recurrence.
Some argue that the surgeon’s judgment, based on both preoperative clinical data
and intraoperative findings, may be sufficient to determine the extent of lateral dissec-
tion. Caron and colleagues84 also found a low rate of recurrence to levels I and V (3% for
both levels combined) in a population that had had previous resection rates of 3.9% for
level I and 18.6% for level V. Nevertheless, several studies have shown that multiple-
level involvement is common in the lateral neck. There is also concern that preoperative
assessment may not be very sensitive at finding involved lymph nodes.
Wu and colleagues85 showed that of 100 patients who had at least 1 positive
lateral neck node, 77% had involvement of multiple lateral neck levels and that
the sensitivity of preoperative ultrasonography for the lateral neck was only in
the 40% to 60% range per level.
Kupferman and colleagues86 also found preoperative ultrasonography to be only
20% sensitive for level V involvement.
Many investigators, however, have advocated thorough lateral neck dissection for
any known lateral involvement.
Kupferman and colleagues75 found a relatively high rate of involvement of level V

metastases, of 21%. This study, however, involved a variety of patient and tumor
characteristics.
Farrag and colleagues82 also found a high rate of level V metastases, with 40% of
patients who underwent lateral neck dissection for clinically proven involvement
of at least one lateral level. This study further differentiated within level V, finding
that all of the level V metastases were in V-B, with 0% involvement of V-A. Differ-
entiation within level II showed a 60% overall involvement of level II, with only an
8.5% involvement of II-B; however, all positive level II-B were also positive in II-A.
Ahmadi and colleagues83 noted equal rates of level V involvement for both
primary resections and lateral neck dissection for recurrence.
In another retrospective review of recurrence in the lateral neck after initial lateral
neck dissection, one group found a relatively high rate of level II recurrence, of
19% to 21%, whether or not the patient had undergone previous dissection of
that level.84
THE BOTTOM LINE: WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE TELL US?
A thorough clinical assessment of the extent of local disease and regional lymph node
metastasis is necessary for staging accurately, determining prognosis, and tailoring
appropriate treatments in thyroid cancer. This assessment includes preoperative
ultrasonography or alternative imaging techniques such as CT, MRI, and PET. Malig-
nancy should be confirmed in any suspicious lymph node using ultrasound-guided
FNA if it will change the extent of the planned operative procedure. Near-total or total
thyroidectomy should be performed in well-differentiated thyroid cancer with tumor
size of greater than 1 cm. For low-risk tumors without nodal metastases of size less
than 1 cm, total lobectomy may be sufficient for locoregional control; however, the
current evidence cautions against using tumor size alone as a criteria for reducing
the extent of surgical resection. Invasive thyroid cancer is relatively uncommon, but
when it occurs there is a significant rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve involvement.
Current evidence suggests that conservative surgical technique with nerve preserva-
tion can be performed in the majority of cases without adversely affecting survival
rates; however, management should be performed on a case-by-case basis. There
are options for nerve salvage, but complete resection often results in significant
patient morbidity. Central neck and lateral neck dissection in the case of known posi-
tive nodes is certainly recommended, as node positivity has been linked to increased
rates of recurrence and mortality.
1174 Liao & Shindo
There is controversy, however, regarding the role of prophylactic central neck

dissection in the case of preoperatively node-negative patients. Evidence shows
a high rate of occult central node metastasis with tumors of all sizes, the finding of
which can affect staging and decision-making for postoperative adjuvant therapy
and follow-up. Rates of permanent complications have not been shown to be signifi-
cantly increased when node dissection is performed by experienced hands, although
there is evidence for a higher rate of transient hypocalcemia. Thus far, however, there
is little evidence to definitively demonstrate improvement in recurrence or survival
rates for patients undergoing prophylactic central neck dissection, because of the
difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of patients to power such a study.87 Contro-
versy also exists regarding the performance of lateral neck dissection. Some evidence
suggests that prophylactic lateral neck dissection should be performed in cases of
central node positivity, and there is also evidence that this is less likely to occur in
younger patients and with smaller tumor sizes. Even when the lateral neck has known
involvement, the necessary extent of dissection has been debated. Most investigators
agree that levels II, III, and IV are the most commonly involved and should likely be
included in all lateral neck dissections. Level I has also been found by most investiga-
tors to have a low level of involvement, and its inclusion in routine dissection has been
suggested to be unnecessary unless preoperative evidence suggests metastasis
specifically to that level. There seems to be disagreement, however, on the routine
inclusion of level V. Overall, the existing set of ATA management guidelines provide
a reasonable methodology for decision-making regarding surgical treatment of thyroid
cancer; however, there are still many areas where continued research will help us to
better define an optimal plan of action for patients.
CRITICAL POINTS
Clinical staging with appropriate imaging can allow for appropriate planning of
surgical management and should include preoperative ultrasonography, or alter-
native methods such as CT, MRI, or PET. Evidence level A.
Suspicious lymph nodes should be assessed for malignancy using ultrasound-
guided FNA. Evidence level A.
Tumors greater than 1 cm in size should be resected via near-total or total
thyroidectomy. Evidence level A.
Tumors less than 1 cm in size may be initially managed via total lobectomy;
Evidence level A
Attempts at preservation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve should be made when
possible, but resection is reasonable in cases of gross involvement with tumor.
Evidence level B.
All presurgically involved levels of lymph nodes should be resected via compart-
ment resection rather than “berry picking.” Evidence level A.
Elective central neck dissection may improve staging accuracy, affect future
treatment plans, and reduce surveillance burden with minimal complications
when performed by experienced hands. Evidence level B.
Lateral neck involvement warrants compartment resection of at least levels II-A,
III, and IV. Evidence level A.
REFERENCES
1. Davies L, Welch HG. Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in the United States,
1973-2002. JAMA 2006;295(18):2164–7.
2. American Thyroid Association (ATA) Guidelines Taskforce on Thyroid Nodules

and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer, Cooper D, Doherty G, Haugen B, et al.
Revised American Thyroid Association management guidelines for patients
with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid 2009;19(11):
1167–214.
3. Stephenson BM, Wheeler MH, Clark OH. The role of total thyroidectomy in the
management of differentiated thyroid cancer. Curr Opin Gen Surg 1994;53–9.
4. Ito Y, Fukushima M, Tomoda C, et al. Prognosis of patients with papillary carci-
noma having clinically apparent metastasis to the lateral compartment. Endocr
J 2009;56(6):759–66.
5. Solorzano CC, Carneiro DM, Ramirez M, et al. Surgeon-performed ultrasound in
the management of thyroid malignancy. Am Surg 2004;70(7):576–80.
6. Ito Y, Miyauchi A. Lateral lymph node dissection guided by preoperative and
intra-operative findings in differentiated thyroid carcinoma. World J Surg 2008;
32(5):729–39.
7. Frasoldati A, Valcavi R. Challenges in neck ultrasonography: lymphadenopathy
and parathyroid glands. Endocr Pract 2004;10(3):261–8.
8. Kuna SK, Bracic I, Tesic V, et al. Ultrasonographic differentiation of benign from
malignant neck lymphadenopathy in thyroid cancer. J Ultrasound Med 2006;
25(12):1531–7.
9. Leboulleux S, Girard E, Rose M, et al. Ultrasound criteria of malignancy for
cervical lymph nodes in patients followed up for differentiated thyroid cancer.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92(9):3590–4.
10. Stulak JM, Grant CS, Farley DR, et al. Value of preoperative ultrasonography in
the surgical management of initial and reoperative papillary thyroid cancer.
Arch Surg 2006;141(5):489–94.
11. Kouvaraki MA, Shapiro SE, Fornage BD, et al. Role of preoperative ultrasonog-
raphy in the surgical management of patients with thyroid cancer. Surgery
2003;134(6):946–54.
12. Kresnik E, Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose posi-
tron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of thyroid nodules in
an endemic goiter area. Surgery 2003;133(3):294–9.
13. Zbaren P, Becker M, Lang H. Pretherapeutic staging of hypopharyngeal carci-
noma. Clinical findings, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance
imaging compared with histopathologic evaluation. Arch Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 1997;124(2):908–13.
14. Jeong HS, Baek CH, Son YI, et al. Integrated 18F-FDG PET-CT for the initial evalua-
tion of cervical node level of patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma: comparison
with ultrasound and contrast-enhanced CT. Clin Endocrinol 2006;65(3):402–7.
15. Kim E, Park JS, Son KR, et al. Preoperative diagnosis of cervical metastatic lymph
nodes in papillary thyroid carcinoma: comparison of ultrasound, computed
tomography, and combined ultrasound with computed tomography. Thyroid
2009;18(4):411–8.
16. Uruno T, Miyauchi A, Shimizu K, et al. Usefulness of thyroglobulin measurement in
fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens for diagnosing cervical lymph node
metastasis in patients with papillary thyroid cancer. World J Surg 2005;29(4):
483–5.
17. Boi F, Baghino G, Atzeni F, et al. The diagnostic value for differentiated thyroid
carcinoma metastases of thyroglobulin (Tg) measurement in washout fluid from
fine-needle aspiration biopsy of neck lymph nodes is maintained in the presence
of circulating anti-Tg antibodies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91(4):1364–9.
1176 Liao & Shindo
18. Shaha AR, Shah JP, Loree TR. Low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer: the need for
selective treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 1996;4(4):328–33.
19. Duren M, Yavuz N, Bukey Y, et al. Impact of initial surgical treatment on survival of
patients with differentiated thyroid cancer: experience of an endocrine surgery
center in an iodine-deficient region. World J Surg 2000;24(11):1290–4.
20. Kim ES, Kim TY, Koh JM, et al. Completion thyroidectomy in patients with thyroid
cancer who initially underwent unilateral operation. Clin Endocrinol 2004;61(1):
145–8.
21. Kupferman ME, Mandel SJ, DiDonato L, et al. Safety of completion thyroidectomy
following unilateral lobectomy for well-differentiated thyroid cancer. Laryngos-
copy 2002;112(7 Pt 1):1209–12.
22. Pacini F, Elisei R, Capezzone M, et al. Contralateral papillary thyroid cancer is
frequent at completion thyroidectomy with no difference in low-and high-risk
patients. Thyroid 2001;11(9):877–81.
23. Pasieka JL, Thompson NW, McLeod MK, et al. The incidence of bilateral well-
differentiated thyroid cancer found a completion thyroidectomy. World J Surg
1992;16(4):711–6.
24. Erdem E, Gül2elik MA, Kuru B, et al. Comparison of completion thyroidectomy
and primary surgery for differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol
2003;29(9):747–9.
25. Hay ID, Thompson GB, Grant CS, et al. Papillary thyroid carcinoma managed at
the mayo clinic during six decades (1940-1999): temporal trends in initial therapy
and long-term outcome in 2444 consecutively treated patients. World J Surg
2002;25:879–85.
26. Bilimoria KY, Bentrem DJ, Ko CY, et al. Extent of surgery affects survival for papil-
lary thyroid cancer. Ann Surg 2007;246(3):375–84.
27. Nixon IJ, Ganly I, Patel SG, et al. Thyroid lobectomy for treatment of well differen-
tiated intrathyroid malignancy. Surgery 2012;151(4):571–9.
28. Hay ID, Hutchinson ME, Gonzalez-Losada T, et al. Papillary thyroid microcarcino-
ma: a study of 900 cases observed in a 60-year period. Surgery 2008;144:980–8.
29. Ogilvie JB, Patel KN, Heller KS. Impact of the 2009 American Thyroid Association
guidelines on the choice of operation for well-differentiated thyroid microcarcino-
ma. Surgery 2010;148(6):1222–6.
30. McCaffrey TV, Bergstralh EJ, Hay ID. Locally invasive papillary thyroid carcinoma:
1940-1990. Head Neck 1994;16(2):165–72.
31. Breaux GP, Guillamondequi OM. Treatment of locally invasive carcinoma of the
thyroid: how radical? Am J Surg 1980;140(4):514–7.
32. Nakao K, Kurozumi K, Fukushima S, et al. Merits and demerits of operative proce-
dure to the trachea in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer. World J Surg
2001;25(6):723–7.
33. Nishida T, Nakao K, Hamaji M, et al. Preservation of recurrent laryngeal nerve
invaded by differentiated thyroid cancer. Ann Surg 1997;226(1):85–91.
34. Kowalski LP, Filho JG. Results of the treatment of locally invasive thyroid carci-
noma. Head Neck 2002;24(4):340–4.
35. Chan WF, Lo CY, Lam KY, et al. Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in well-
differentiated thyroid carcinoma: clinicopathologic features and outcome study.
World J Surg 2004;28(11):1093–8.
36. Falk SA, McCaffrey TV. Management of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in suspected
and proven thyroid cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;113(1):42–8.
37. Urken M. Prognosis and management of invasive well-differentiated thyroid
cancer. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2010;43(2):301–28.
38. Chiang FY, Lin JC, Lee KW, et al. Thyroid tumors with preoperative recurrent
laryngeal nerve palsy: clinicopathologic features and treatment outcome. Surgery
2006;140(3):413–7.
39. Chiang FY, Lu IC, Tsai CJ, et al. Does extensive dissection of recurrent laryngeal
nerve during thyroid operation increase the risk of nerve injury? Evidence from
the application of intraoperative neuromonitoring. Am J Otol 2011;32(6):499–503.
40. American Thyroid Association Surgery Working Group, American Association of
Endocrine Surgeons, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck
Surgery, Carty S, Cooper D, Doherty G, et al. Consensus statement on the termi-
nology and classification of central neck dissection for thyroid cancer. Thyroid
2009;19(11):1153–8.
41. Grodski S, Cornford L, Sywak M, et al. Routine level VI lymph node dissection for
papillary thyroid cancer: surgical technique. ANZ J Surg 2007;77(4):203–8.
42. Qubain S, Nakano S, Baba M, et al. Distribution of lymph node micrometastases
in pN0 well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Surgery 2002;131(3):249–56.
43. Roh JL, Kim JM, Park CI. Central compartment reoperation for recurrent/persis-
tent differentiated thyroid cancer: patterns of recurrence, morbidity, and predic-
tion of postoperative hypocalcemia. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18(5):1312–8.
44. Lee SH, Lee SS, Jin SM, et al. Predictive factors for central compartment lymph
node metastasis in thyroid papillary microcarcinoma. Laryngoscope 2008;118(4):
659–62.
45. Roh JL, Park JY, Rha K, et al. Is central neck dissection necessary for the treat-
ment of lateral cervical nodal recurrence of papillary thyroid carcinoma? Head
Neck 2007;29(10):901–5.
46. Leboulleux S, Rubino C, Baudin E, et al. Prognostic factors for persistent or recur-
rent disease of papillary thyroid carcinoma with neck lymph node metastases
and/or tumor extension beyond the thyroid capsule at initial diagnosis. J Clin
Endocrinol Metab 2005;90(10):5723–9.
47. Harwood J, Clark O, Dunphy J. Significance of lymph node metastasis in differ-
entiated thyroid cancer. Am J Surg 1978;136(1):107–12.
48. Mazzaferri E, Jhiang S. Long-term impact of initial surgical and medical therapy
on papillary and follicular thyroid cancer. Am J Med 1994;97(5):418–28.
49. Podnos Y, Smith D, Wagman L, et al. The implication of lymph node metastasis on
survival in patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer. Am Surg 2005;71(9):731–4.
50. Bhattacharyya N. A population-based analysis of survival factors in differentiated and
medullary thyroid carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;128(1):115–23.
51. Scheumann G, Gimm O, Wegener G, et al. Prognostic significance and surgical
management of locoregional lymph node metastases in papillary thyroid cancer.
World J Surg 1994;18(4):559–67.
52. Lundgren C, Hall P, Dickman P, et al. Clinically significant prognostic factors for
differentiated thyroid carcinoma: a population-based, nested case-control study.
Cancer 2006;106(3):524–31.
53. Grant C, Stulak J, Thompson G, et al. Risks and adequacy of an optimized
surgical approach to the primary surgical management of papillary thyroid carci-
noma treated during 1999-2006. World J Surg 2010;34(6):1239–46.
54. Musacchio MJ, Kim AW, Vijungco JD, et al. Greater local recurrence occurs with
“berry picking” than neck dissection in thyroid cancer. Am Surg 2003;69(3):
191–7.
55. Moo TA, McGill J, Allendorf J, et al. Impact of prophylactic central neck lymph
node dissection on early recurrence in papillary thyroid carcinoma. World J
Surg 2010;34(6):1187–91.
1178 Liao & Shindo
56. Shindo M, Wu J, Park E, et al. The importance of central compartment elective

lymph node excision in the staging and treatment of papillary thyroid cancer.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132(6):650–4.
57. Wada N, Duh QY, Sugino K, et al. Lymph node metastasis from 259 papillary
thyroid microcarcinomas. Ann Surg 2003;237(3):399–407.
58. Roh JL, Kim JM, Park C. Central cervical nodal metastasis from papillary thyroid
microcarcinoma: pattern and factors predictive of nodal metastasis. Ann Surg
Oncol 2008;15(9):2482–6.
59. Hughes D, White M, Miller B, et al. Influence of prophylactic central lymph node
dissection on postoperative thyroglobulin levels and radioiodine treatment in
papillary thyroid cancer. Surgery 2010;148(6):1100–6.
60. Bonnet S, Hartl D, Leboulleux S, et al. Prophylactic lymph node dissection for
papillary thyroid cancer less than 2 cm: implications for radioiodine treatment.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009;94(4):1162–7.
61. Sywak M, Cornford L, Roach P, et al. Routine ipsilateral level VI lymphadenec-
tomy reduces postoperative thyroglobulin levels in papillary thyroid cancer.
Surgery 2006;140(6):1000–5.
62. So Y, Seo M, Son YI. Prophylactic central lymph node dissection for clinically
node-negative papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: influence on serum thyroglob-
ulin level, recurrence rate, and postoperative complications. Surgery 2012;
151(2):192–8.
63. Henry J, Gramatica L, Denizot A, et al. Morbidity of prophylactic lymph node
dissection in the central neck area in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma.
Langenbecks Arch Surg 1998;383(2):167–9.
64. Zetoune T, Keutgen X, Buitrago D, et al. Prophylactic central neck dissection and
local recurrence in papillary thyroid cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol
2010;17(12):3287–93.
65. Chao TC, Jeng LB, Lin JD, et al. Reoperative thyroid surgery. World J Surg 1997;
21(6):644–7.
66. Kim M, Mandel S, Baloch Z, et al. Morbidity following central compartment reop-
eration for recurrent or persistent thyroid cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2004;130(10):1214–6.
67. So Y, Son Y, Hong S, et al. Subclinical lymph node metastasis in papillary
thyroid microcarcinoma: a study of 551 resections. Surgery 2010;148(3):
526–31.
68. Shen W, Ogawa L, Ruan D, et al. Central neck lymph node dissection for papillary
thyroid cancer: the reliability of surgeon judgment in predicting which patients will
benefit. Surgery 2010;148(2):398–403.
69. Shen W, Ogawa L, Ruan D, et al. Central neck lymph node dissection for papillary
thyroid cancer: comparison of complication and recurrence rates in 295 initial
dissections and reoperations. Arch Surg 2010;145(3):272–5.
70. Sadowski B, Snyder S, Lairmore T. Routine bilateral central lymph node clearance
for papillary thyroid cancer. Surgery 2009;146(4):696–703.
71. Shindo ML, Stern A. Total thyroidectomy with and without selective neck dissec-
tion. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:584–7.
72. Roh JL, Kim JM, Park C. Central lymph node metastasis of unilateral papillary
thyroid carcinoma: patterns and factors predictive of nodal metastasis, morbidity,
and recurrence. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18(8):2245–50.
73. Koo B, Choi E, Park YH, et al. Occult contralateral central lymph node metastases
in papillary thyroid carcinoma with unilateral lymph node metastasis in the lateral
neck. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210(6):895–900.
74. Chung YS, Kim JY, Bae JS, et al. Lateral lymph node metastasis in papillary
thyroid carcinoma: results of therapeutic lymph node dissection. Thyroid 2009;
19(3):241–6.
75. Kupferman ME, Patterson M, Mandel SJ, et al. Patterns of lateral neck metastasis
in papillary thyroid carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130(7):
857–60.
76. Lim YS, Lee JC, Lee YS, et al. Lateral cervical lymph node metastases from papil-
lary thyroid carcinoma: predictive factors of nodal metastasis. Surgery 2011;
150(1):116–21.
77. Jeong JJ, Lee YS, Lee SC, et al. A scoring system for prediction of lateral neck
node metastasis from papillary thyroid cancer. J Korean Med Sci 2011;26(8):
996–1000.
78. Kwak JY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, et al. Papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid: pre-
dicting factors of lateral neck node metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16(5):
1348–55.
79. Goropoulous A, Karamoshos K, Christodoulou A, et al. Value of the cervical
compartments in the surgical treatment of papillary thyroid carcinoma. World J
Surg 2004;28(12):1275–81.
80. Machens A, Hinze R, Thomusch O, et al. Pattern of nodal metastasis for primary
and reoperative thyroid cancer. World J Surg 2001;26:22–8.
81. Wang TS, Dubner S, Sznyter LA, et al. Incidence of metastatic well-differentiated
thyroid cancer in cervical lymph nodes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;
130(1):110–3.
82. Farrag T, Lin F, Brownlee N, et al. Is routine dissection of level II-B and V-A
necessary in patients with papillary thyroid cancer undergoing lateral neck
dissection for FNA-confirmed metastases in other levels. World J Surg 2009;
33(8):1680–3.
83. Ahmadi N, Grewal A, Davidson BJ. Patterns of cervical lymph node metastasis in
primary and recurrent papillary thyroid cancer. J Oncol 2011;2011:735678 [Epub
2011 Nov 17].
84. Caron NR, Tan YY, Ogilvie JB, et al. Selective modified radical neck dissection for
papillary thyroid cancer—is level I, II and V dissection always necessary? World J
Surg 2006;30:833–40.
85. Wu G, Fraser S, Pai SI, et al. Determining the extent of lateral neck dissection
necessary to establish regional disease control and avoid reoperation after
previous total thyroidectomy and radioactive iodine for papillary thyroid cancer.
Head Neck 2011 Nov 3. [Epub ahead of print]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
hed.21937.
86. Kupferman ME, Weinstock YE, Santillan AA, et al. Predictors of level V metastasis
in well-differentiated thyroid cancer. Head Neck 2008;30(11):1469–74.
87. American Thyroid Association, Carling T, Carty SE, Ciarleglio MM, et al. Design
and feasibility of a prospective randomized controlled trial of prophylactic cen-
tral lymph node dissection for papillary thyroid carcinoma. Thyroid 2012;22(3):
237–44.
Management of the Clinical Node-Negative Neck in
Early-Stage Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Marcus M. Monroe, MD, Neil D. Gross, MD*
KEYWORDS
Evidence-based otolaryngology N0 neck Squamous cell carcinoma Oral cavity
KEY POINTS
The presence of lymph node metastases in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC)
continues to be one of the most important prognostic factors. In clinical node-negative
(cN0) early-stage OCSCC, the prevalence of occult nodal disease ranges from 18% to
30% for T1 lesions and 24% to 53% for T2 tumors.
Preoperative factors, including characteristics of the primary tumor, histopathologic
features, and preoperative imaging, can help adjust the estimated risk of nodal disease.
The most appropriate management strategy for dealing with the cN0 neck remains contro-
versial, with observation, elective neck dissection, and sentinel lymph node biopsy reported
as potential management strategies. There is insufficient evidence to recommend any
single management strategy over another (level of evidence 1a-; grade D).
The current literature is hampered by inadequately powered studies regarding the role of
elective neck dissection in early-stage clinically node-negative OCSCC.
OVERVIEW
Spread to the cervical lymphatics continues to be one of the most important prog-
nostic factors in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), with
a reduction in survival of at least 30%.1 As such, the presence of lymphatic spread
is an integral consideration when deciding on the use of adjuvant therapy. In patients
with a clinically negative neck (ie, those with no evidence of cervical lymphatic spread
by physical examination and imaging studies), there is continued controversy as to the
most appropriate management strategy.
None of the authors have conflicts of interest or financial disclosures.

Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University,
Portland, OR, USA
* Corresponding author. Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon
Health and Science University, 3181 Sam Jackson Park Road, PV-01, Portland, OR 97239-3098.
E-mail address: grossn@ohsu.edu

0030-6665/12/$ – see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc.
1182 Monroe & Gross
Elective treatment with neck dissection, sentinel lymph node biopsy, radiation, and
observation are proposed strategies for managing the clinically node-negative (cN0)
neck. The debate surrounding these management choices has been longstanding,
with recent reinvigoration from the increasing interest in transoral surgical approaches
and the avoidance of external incisions in the management of early-stage head and
neck malignancies.
Despite several decades of intensive debate in the medical literature, the role of
elective neck dissection (END) in patients with cN0 OCSCC remains controversial.
The conflicting conclusions of a large number of heterogeneous retrospective studies
and the lack of large-scale, adequately powered prospective studies contribute to the
confusion surrounding this topic. This article provides a critical review of the evidence
surrounding the management of the cN0 patient with early-stage OCSCC.

Choosing an Appropriate Therapeutic Threshold
Before any clinical assessment of the risk of lymphatic metastases, the physician
should establish an appropriate treatment threshold beyond which the potential
benefits of treatment outweigh the morbidity. This a priori defined threshold forms
the backdrop that frames all management decisions regarding the risk of lymphatic
metastases. Although little controversy exists at the extremes of risk, the benefit
becomes less clear in cases with intermediate risk of occult nodal disease. Having
a defined level at which the potential benefits of elective treatment outweigh the risks
provides a rational approach to the application of treatment.
Given the fundamental importance of defining a treatment threshold in interpreting
estimates of the risk of occult nodal disease and the subsequent application of treat-
ment, it is surprising that little attention has been paid to this question in the literature.
In their often-quoted paper, Weiss and colleagues2 used a decision tree analysis to
derive a treatment threshold of 20%. This analysis was based on the risk of nodal
disease, the effectiveness of primary and salvage surgery, and a subjective assign-
ment of the usefulness of treatment outcomes. Based on this analysis, they argued
that patients with a risk of nodal metastases greater than 20% would benefit from
END. Although many continue to use a 20% risk of nodal metastases as a general
guideline for performing END, the clinical data used to generate this threshold are
based on historical series that may not reflect contemporary treatment outcomes.
More recent publications have recommended treatment thresholds ranging from
17% to 40%.3,4 Given the lack of high-quality evidence surrounding any of these treat-
ment thresholds, they should be interpreted with caution. Such thresholds should not
be interpreted as absolute values that define when treatment is appropriate. Rather,
they should serve to emphasize that any interpretation of the risk of nodal metastases
needs to be done in the framework of a predefined threshold for action.
Assessing the Risk of Occult Nodal Disease

Assessment of the primary site
Once a threshold for END has been defined, an initial assessment of the risk of nodal
disease is based on the site and classification of the primary tumor (T classification).
Subsequent evaluation of specific tumor characteristics, including depth of invasion,
histologic tumor grade, and presence of perineural and/or lymphovascular invasion,
can be used to adjust the probability estimates of occult nodal disease.
Rates of regional metastatic spread differ by oral cavity subsite. Squamous cell
carcinoma involving the tongue is the most well-studied subsite of the oral cavity.
Early-stage tongue carcinomas have higher rates of metastatic spread than floor of
mouth carcinomas.5,6 Comparisons with other oral cavity subsites are limited.
The probability of occult nodal disease based on the clinical T classification has
been estimated in multiple END studies in early OCSCC (Table 1).5,7,8 Differences in
patient populations, subsite distribution, extent of dissection, and methods of histo-
logic node analysis between these studies make comparative estimates of the preva-
lence of occult nodal disease difficult. In END series in which elective treatment of the
neck was applied universally, the prevalence of occult positive nodes ranges from 6%
to 25% for T1 OCSCC, whereas the prevalence for T2 OCSCC ranges from 20% to
32%. When the studies comparing observation and neck dissection are included
(Table 2), the prevalence of occult node disease in early OCSCC can approach
40% to 50%,4,6–17 although these numbers may be inflated because of selection bias.
Although location and clinical T classification can be obtained from preoperative
examination alone, other factors that have been reported to affect the prevalence of
occult nodal disease require further diagnostic testing. These factors include histo-
pathologic details such as tumor grade, lymphovascular invasion, perineural spread,
and depth of invasion.
The depth of invasion of the primary tumor, particularly for oral tongue squamous
cell carcinoma, has been reported to significantly influence the prevalence of occult
node positivity. A depth of invasion greater than 4 mm has been associated with an
increased risk of occult node metastasis. Asakage and colleagues9 studied 44
patients with T1 and T2 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue who were treated
with partial glossectomy and observation of the neck. At 5 years, 21 of the 44 had
developed neck metastases. On multivariate analysis, only the depth of invasion pre-
dicted subsequent cervical node metastases with a relative risk ratio of 9.4 (95%
confidence interval [CI] 1.5–57.7) for lesions 4 mm or greater in thickness.9 Additional
retrospective studies noted an association between increased tumor thickness and an
increased risk of occult node disease.10,18,19
The importance of a tumor depth 4 mm or greater has been validated as an impor-
tant predictor of occult node metastasis in prospective randomized controlled trials
evaluating END versus observation for early-stage OSCC.11,16 In a study comparing
hemiglossectomy alone or with elective radical neck dissection for early-stage oral
tongue squamous cell carcinoma, Fakih and colleagues11 showed an increased rate
of occult nodal disease (67% vs 8%; P<.01) for tumors with a depth of 4 mm or greater
in the END arm of the study. In the observation arm, they showed a corresponding
increased rate of delayed regional node metastases in tumors with a depth of 4 mm
or greater (76% vs 22%; P<.01). Similar trends were noted in a prospective study
by Kligerman and colleagues16 that compared resection alone versus resection with
selective neck dissection (levels I–III) for early-stage OCSCC. The investigators
observed a trend toward an increase in occult node positivity with tumors greater
than 4 mm in depth (30% vs 7%; P 5 .11).
Table 1
Representative series showing the range in prevalence of occult nodal metastases by
T classification in early OCSCC
Investigators n T1 (%) T2 (%)

Iype et al35 172 25.4 29.4
Thiele et al15 122 5.9 19.7
Civantos et al32 140 25.0 32.0
1184
Monroe & Gross
Table 2
Retrospective series comparing END and observation (Obs) in early-stage OCSCC
% Survival for
Investigators n Population % Occult ND (END) % Delayed ND (Obs) % Salvaged END, Obs (y) Recommendation
Ebrahimi et al36 153 T1–T2 OC 37 39 21 92, 69 (5) END
Dias et al5 49 T1 OT, FOM 21 28 38 97, 74 (3) END
Haddadin et al26 137 T1–T2 OT 38 41 35 80.5, 53.6 (5) END
Capote et al23 154 T1–T2 0 27 32 92.5, 71.4 (5) END
Cunningham et al24 54 T1–T2 OT, FOM 14 42 56 88, 77 (3) END
Lydiatt et al27 156 T1–T2 OT 20 17 50 55, 33 END
Duvvuri et al37 359 T1–T2 OC, OP 23 27 N/A 73, 58 END
Keski-Santti et al8 80 T1–T2 OT 34 44 33 82, 77 (5) END
Franceschi et al25 149 T1–T2 OT 41 26 41 62, 63 (5) Obs
O’Brien et al18 162 T1–T4 OC, OP 30 9 80 86, 94 (3) Obs
Khafif et al38 590 T1–T4 OC, OP, L 41 16 49 56, 49 Obs
D’Cruz et al39 359 T1–T2, OT 20 47 46 74, 68 (5) Obs
Layland et al40 621 T1–T4 OC 12 N/A 31 54, 58 Obs
Liu et al41 131 T1 OT 24 23 N/A 80, 74 (4) Obs
Abbreviations: FOM, floor of mouth; L, larynx; OC, oral cavity; OP, oropharynx; OT, oral tongue.
Because of these findings, many have recommended END when the depth of invasion
exceeds 4 mm. Although the evidence strongly suggests that an increase in the depth
of the primary tumor is significantly associated with an increased risk of node positivity,
interpretations of the degree to which it influences this risk and the best cutoff value in
tumor thickness are clouded by significant heterogeneity in the study populations,
extent of node dissection, and techniques for measuring tumor thickness.
Perhaps the greatest limitation to the use of the 4-mm tumor thickness cutoff is
the difficulty in obtaining this information before it is needed. Although staged END
can be performed after treatment of the primary tumor and pathologic analysis of
the specimen, many surgeons prefer to address the primary tumor and regional
lymphatics at the same surgical setting. A preoperative biopsy can provide an esti-
mate of tumor thickness but may be subject to sampling error. To overcome these
limitations, Taylor and colleagues12 reported using ultrasound (US) to assess the
depth of the primary lesion. In a consecutive series of 21 patients with oral tongue
and floor of mouth squamous cell carcinoma, the investigators noted a high concor-
dance between pathologic tumor thickness and preoperative US estimation of thick-
ness.12 However, the results of this study have yet to be replicated in a large series of
patients with OCSCC and therefore should be interpreted with caution.
Other histopathologic parameters, such as lymphovascular invasion, tumor grade,
and perineural spread, have less consistent relationships with the risk of cervical
node metastases than either clinical tumor classification or thickness. As such, the
usefulness of these parameters to adjust predictions regarding the risk of occult
node disease is not clear.
Assessment of the neck

The sensitivity of physical examination for the detection of cervical node metastases is
reported to range from 60% to 80%,20 which is less than the useful level for decision
making.
Imaging A variety of imaging techniques can provide increased sensitivity and speci-
ficity for the detection of regional node metastases. US, magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI), computed tomography (CT), photon emission tomography (PET), and PET-CT/
MRI fusion have all been examined in the context of the N0 neck, with varying accuracy.
The usefulness of these imaging studies lies, in part, in their ability to shift the prob-
ability or risk of nodal metastasis past (either above or below) the predetermined
threshold for treatment. The decision to obtain imaging of the neck should conse-
quently be made in light of the estimated probability of occult disease based on the
initial examination of the primary lesion. In some patients, the initial risk of nodal metas-
tases may exceed a threshold at which testing for the sake of determining whether END
is necessary is unwarranted. For instance, a large, deeply invasive T2 tongue carci-
noma may have an estimated risk of nodal metastases that is high enough to warrant
END regardless of the findings of any imaging study. In this case, imaging may provide
valuable additional information about the primary tumor or potentially the extent of
dissection, but would not alter the decision of whether or not treatment is needed.
Several prospective studies have compared the performance of various imaging
modalities in the examination of the neck in patients with OCSCC: Stuckensen and
colleagues21 compared the ability of PET, MRI, CT, and US to detect cervical node
metastases in 106 patients with OCSCC who underwent END. Using pathologic assess-
ment as the gold standard: PET had the greatest accuracy: sensitivity 70%, specificity
82%; US: 84%, 68%; CT: 66%, 74%; MRI: 64%, 69%. In a study of 463 patients with
OCSCC, Liao and colleagues22 reported that preoperative 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose
1186 Monroe & Gross
(FDG) PET had a sensitivity and specificity of 77.7% and 58.0%, respectively. When
examination is restricted to patients with clinically N0 disease, the reported sensitivities
and specificities decline markedly. Ng and colleagues13 prospectively compared the
performance of CT, MRI, and PET in 134 patients with OCSCC without palpable aden-
opathy. Overall, 35 (26.1%) had neck metastases. The best sensitivity and specificity for
the detection of occult nodal disease was with PET imaging visually correlated to CT/
MRI (57.1% and 96%, respectively) compared with PET alone (51.4% and 91.9%) or
CT/MRI alone (31.4% and 91.9%). Based on these data, the posttest probability of
occult nodal metastasis with a negative PET correlated with CT/MRI was 3.3% in T1
tumors and 9.2% in T2 tumors.
Kyzas and colleagues14 performed a meta-analysis examining the diagnostic
performance of 18F-FDG PET in patients with head and neck squamous cell carci-
noma. For the cN0 subpopulation, the investigators found 10 studies with 311 patients
for analysis. For this subpopulation, the sensitivity of PET was only 50% (95% CI 37%–
63%), whereas specificity was 87% (95% CI 76%–93%). The positive likelihood ratio
was 3.83 (95% CI 1.90–7.75) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.57 (95% CI 0.43–
0.77).
This means that, with an estimated pretest probability of occult nodal metastasis of
20%, the posttest probability with a positive PET scan shifts to 49%. The posttest
probability with a negative PET scan is 12%, which is less than the commonly cited
threshold of 20% for consideration of END.2 Therefore, a PET scan may be beneficial
in the initial evaluation of the cN0 neck, depending on an individual’s treatment
threshold.
END Versus Observation
A large number of retrospective studies have compared END with observation and
have arrived at differing conclusions (Table 2).4,6–8,12,15,18,21–27 These studies gener-
ally suffer from inadequate statistical power related to small sample size and signifi-
cant selection bias that limit interpretation of the results. Furthermore, comparisons
between these studies are hampered by differences in surgical technique, such as
the extent of neck dissection performed and patient populations (eg, proportion of
patients with T1 and T2 classification and differences in distribution of oral cavity
subsites).
Only 4 prospective studies have compared END and observation in N0 patients with
OCSCC (Table 3).2,15,20,28
1. In 1980, Vandenbrouk and colleagues28 compared radical neck dissection with
observation in 75 patients with cT1 to T3N0 OCSCC. No significant difference in
3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was noted, with 46% DFS in the END cohort
and 58% in the observation cohort.
2. In 1989, Fakih and colleagues11 reported no significant survival advantage for
patients undergoing hemiglossectomy and radical END compared with hemiglos-
sectomy and observation. DFS at 1 year was 63% in the END cohort compared
with 52% in those treated with initial observation and therapeutic neck dissection,
if required. This difference was not statistically significant.
3. In 1994, Kligerman and colleagues16 compared selective (levels I–III) END with
observation in patients with T1 to T2 oral tongue and floor of mouth squamous
cell carcinoma. At 3.5 years, they noted a statistically significant difference in
DFS between patients who were managed electively (72%) versus those initially
observed (49%; P 5 .04).
Table 3
Prospective studies comparing END with Obs in early-stage OCSCC
Intervention % Occult % Delayed % DFS for Survival

Investigators n Population (Primary, Neck) ND (END) ND (Obs) % Salvage END, Obs (y) Advantage
Vandenbrouk et al28 75 T1–T3 OT, FOM RT, RND 49 53 84 46, 58 (3) None
Fakih et al11 70 T1–T2 OT RSX, RND 33.3 57 30 63, 52 (1) None
Kligerman et al16 67 T1–T2 OT, FOM RSX, SND 21 42 27 72, 49 (3) END
Yuen et al29 71 T1–T2 OT RSX, SND 22 31 100 89, 87 (5) None
Abbreviations: DFS, disease-free survival; RND, radical neck dissection; RSX, resection; RT, radiation; SND, selective neck dissection.
Evidence-Based Practice
1187
1188 Monroe & Gross
4. In 2009, Yuen and colleagues29 compared selective END with observation and
noted no significant disease-specific survival advantage in 71 patients with T1
and T2 oral tongue carcinoma (89% at 5 years in the END cohort compared with
87% in the observation arm, P 5 .89).
No prospective study has shown a difference in overall survival.
The success of a strategy of observation relies primarily on the effectiveness of
salvage surgery in those patients who develop delayed node metastases. An increase
in the nodal disease burden and a higher incidence of extracapsular tumor extension
have been reported in patients who undergo therapeutic neck dissection for delayed
metastases versus up-front END.16,26,30 The significantly improved DFS noted by
Kligerman and colleagues16 is, in part, the result of a salvage rate of only 27% in
patients who were managed initially with resection and observation. The investigators
speculated that a possible reason for poor outcome noted with observation was that
their study included many patients of low socioeconomic level who returned for follow-
up with advanced neck recurrence. The investigators implied that improved follow-up
may have resulted in less advanced disease at the time of salvage surgery, and poten-
tially improved survival. Others have reported much higher salvage rates following
initial observation. Given the fundamental importance of the surgical salvage rate in
determining the effectiveness of a strategy of observation, and the wide range of
salvage rates reported in these 4 studies (27%–100%), the conclusions must be inter-
preted with care.
However, the most glaring limitation of the studies to date remains the lack of
adequate statistical power to detect a meaningful difference in survival. If an 80%
5-year survival is assumed, to detect a 10% difference in survival (power 80%,
a 0.05), approximately 300 patients per study arm would be required.17 Even combined,
the total population of the 4 prospective studies to date is much less than this number.
Fasluna and colleagues7 performed a meta-analysis combining the data from these
4 prospective trials to determine whether there was a survival advantage with END.
They noted a significant reduction in the relative risk of disease-specific death in
patients treated with END in both a fixed effects (relative risk 0.57; 95% CI 0.36–
0.89) and random effects model (relative risk 0.59; 95% CI 0.37–0.96). However, the
heterogeneity in the study populations, treatments, and outcomes between these
studies raises concern about the validity of such a systematic review. As such, there
is currently insufficient evidence to recommend for or against a policy of END in the
clinically negative neck in early-stage OCSCC (level of evidence 1a ; grade D).
Therefore, the question of the value of END in N0 patients with OCSCC remains
unanswered. A multi-institutional effort will be required to achieve adequate accrual
for a properly powered study. However, there is little enthusiasm from cooperative
groups to address primarily surgical questions. Even the American College of
Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) no longer supports head and neck clinical
trials. In contrast, such fundamental questions are being addressed for patients with
melanoma by the Multicenter Selective Lymphadenectomy series of prospective
studies. There remains an unmet need for the organization and funding of multicenter
head and neck clinical trials to address surgical questions.
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Increasing evidence has been published in the last decade regarding the effectiveness
of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for early-stage OCSCC. This subject has been
the focus of numerous retrospective and prospective series, primarily from Europe. In
2005, Paleri and colleagues31 performed a meta-analysis of the available studies on
a combined 301 patients with OCSCC and 49 with oropharyngeal squamous cell
carcinoma. The sensitivities of SLNB in the series ranged from 0.75 to 1, with a pooled
sensitivity using the random effects model of 0.926 (95% CI 0.852–0.964).
Since that time, the ACOSOG multi-institutional trial evaluating the diagnostic accu-
racy of SLNB in the United States has been reported.32 The study examined the accu-
racy of SLNB in 140 patients with early-stage (T1–T2N0) OCSCC. Most of these
patients had oral tongue (n 5 95) and floor of mouth (n 5 26) primaries. With routine
hematoxylin and eosin analysis they noted a 94% (95% CI 0.88–0.98) negative predic-
tive value (NPV). With additional sectioning of the sentinel node and immunohisto-
chemical analysis, the NPV improved to 96% (95% CI 0.90–0.98). SLNB performed
similarly for floor of mouth and oral tongue primaries. Improved performance was
noted for T1 versus T2 lesions (NPV 100% vs 94%) and for surgeons experienced
in SLNB compared with novices (NPV 100% vs 95%).
The results of both the ACOSOG trial and earlier experiences are encouraging that
SLNB can accurately stage the neck in early-stage OCSCC. The diagnostic accuracy
of SLNB, combined with the perception that it is less morbid than a staging selective
END, has led to some adopting SLNB as the initial approach to staging the neck in
early-stage OCSCC, particularly in Europe where it has become the standard approach
for some centers.10 Although intuitively SLNB should be associated with reduced
morbidity compared with END, the data supporting this for OCSCC are sparse.
Murer and colleagues33 examined subjective impairment, functional shoulder
status, and postoperative complications in 62 consecutive patients treated for early-
stage OCSCC. Thirty-three of these patients underwent SLNB alone. The remaining
29 underwent a selective (I–III) END for an initial positive sentinel node, 20 of which
were performed immediately following positive frozen section analysis of the sentinel
node. The remaining 9 cases underwent a staged neck dissection.
The investigators noted a higher incidence of shoulder dysfunction as measured
with a modified relative Constant score, longer scar length, and more postoperative
complications in the END cohort compared with the SLNB group. However, this study
was limited by the comparison groups not being equivalent given the presence of
known neck disease in the cohort undergoing neck dissection. It is theoretically
possible that prior SLNB may change the risks associated with subsequent neck
dissection, either through distortion of anatomy, inflammation in the case of staged
neck dissection, or even knowledge of positive neck disease, which may affect the
extent of dissection. Furthermore, the investigators make no mention as to whether
level 2b was dissected, a factor known to be associated with shoulder dysfunction.
Schiefke and colleagues34 examined quality of life (QOL) outcomes and functional
status in 49 patients undergoing transoral surgical resection for oral and oropharyn-
geal squamous cell carcinoma. Twenty-four of these patients underwent SNLB. The
remaining 25 underwent selective (I–III) END.
QOL measurements included the health-related EORTC QLQ-30, the disease-
specific EORTC QLQ-H&N35, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. No
differences were noted in the EORTC QLQ-30, whereas only the swallowing subset
of the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 showed a significant difference between SLNB and
END. Patients having SLNB were also more likely to have less fear of disease progres-
sion and experienced significantly less impairment from cervical scars, less sensory
dysfunction, and better shoulder function as assessed by the Constant Shoulder
Score. This study was limited by potential selection bias given the lack of randomiza-
tion. Furthermore, the END cohort contained 8 patients with oropharyngeal and hypo-
pharyngeal carcinoma, whereas the SLNB cohort comprised only patients with
OCSCC.
1190 Monroe & Gross
Overall, the evidence to date suggests that, for experienced clinicians, SLNB is
a reliable method for staging the cN0 neck in patients with early-stage OCSCC (level
of evidence 1b, grade 1). However, conclusive data showing a reduction in morbidity
compared with END is lacking (level of evidence 4, grade C). As with END, evidence
showing a clear survival benefit for SLNB compared with observation is also lacking.
Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the widespread adoption of SLNB,
which is a technically more demanding procedure. Although initial data are encour-
aging, SLNB should not be considered a replacement for END outside a clinical trial.
WHAT DOES THE EVIDENCE SUGGEST ABOUT OCSCC?
Spread to the lymph nodes is one of the most important prognostic factors in OCSCC.
Multiple retrospective and prospective studies place the risk of occult disease in early-
stage cN0 OCSCC between 20% and 50% depending on the stage, subsite, and
histopathologic features. There remains a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the
appropriate risk threshold beyond which END should be undertaken (level of evidence
3b, grade B). Surgeon experience, resources, patient comorbidity and preferences
should therefore continue to guide decisions regarding the appropriate threshold for
END in cN0 patients with OCSCC. Depending on the therapeutic threshold, PET or
PET/CT imaging may offer additional information that can shift the risk of occult nodal
disease to more than or less than the defined treatment threshold (level of evidence
1b, grade A).
Management options for the cN0 neck include observation, END, and SLNB.
Evidence to show that END is superior to observation for cN0 early-stage OCSCC
is lacking. Of the 4 randomized clinical trials to date comparing END with observation
for early-stage OCSCC, only 1 showed a significant improvement in DFS. All 4 trials
displayed major limitations, most significantly a lack of adequate statistical power to
show a meaningful difference in survival. Although the most recent meta-analysis of
these studies showed a significant survival benefit in favor of END, there is trouble-
some heterogeneity in the patient populations, methods of treatment, follow-up,
and surgical salvage rates between studies, which makes meta-analyses inconclusive
(level of evidence 1a , grade D). SLNB by experienced surgeons has been shown to
adequately stage the neck compared with END (level of evidence 1b, grade A). There
is a lack of high-quality data showing a reduction in morbidity between SLNB and END
(level of evidence 4, grade C). SLNB should not be considered a standard replacement
for END outside a clinical trial at this time.
With a lack of clear evidence to guide treatment, decisions regarding the most
appropriate management strategy for the cN0 neck in early-stage OCSCC should
be based on provider experience, an individualized assessment of the risk of nodal
disease, and a frank discussion with the patient regarding the advantages and disad-
vantages of each approach. A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial
comparing END with observation would be of great value.
CRITICAL POINTS
The presence of lymph node metastases in OCSCC continues to be one of the

most important prognostic factors. In the cN0 early-stage OCSCC, the preva-
lence of occult nodal disease ranges from 18% to 30% for T1 lesions and
24% to 53% for T2 tumors.
Many continue to cite a treatment threshold of 20% for END. However, there is
a lack of evidence defining the most appropriate treatment threshold (level of
evidence 3b, grade B).
Preoperative factors including characteristics of the primary tumor (subsite and

size classification), histopathologic features, and preoperative imaging can
help adjust the estimated risk of nodal disease.
The most appropriate management strategy for dealing with the cN0 neck
remains controversial, with observation, END, and SLNB reported as potential
management strategies. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one
management strategy over another at this time (level of evidence 1a-, grade D).
The current literature is hampered by inadequately powered studies. Large,
multi-institutional clinical trials are needed to properly define the role of END in
early-stage squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity.
REFERENCES
1. SEER stat fact sheets: oral cavity and pharynx. SEER; 2012. Available at: http://
seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/oralcav.html. Accessed January 1, 2012.
2. Weiss MH, Harrison LB, Isaacs RS. Use of decision analysis in planning
a management strategy for the stage N0 neck. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 1994;120(7):699–702.
3. Song T, Bi N, Gui L, et al. Elective neck dissection or "watchful waiting": optimal
management strategy for early stage N0 tongue carcinoma using decision anal-
ysis techniques. Chin Med J (Engl) 2008;121(17):1646–50.
4. Okura M, Aikawa T, Sawai NY, et al. Decision analysis and treatment threshold in
a management for the N0 neck of the oral cavity carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2009;
45(10):908–11.
5. Dias FL, Lima RA, Kligerman J, et al. Relevance of skip metastases for squamous
cell carcinoma of the oral tongue and the floor of the mouth. Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 2006;134(3):460–5.
6. Jerjes W, Upile T, Petrie A, et al. Clinicopathological parameters, recurrence,
locoregional and distant metastasis in 115 T1-T2 oral squamous cell carcinoma
patients. Head Neck Oncol 2010;2:9.
7. Fasunla AJ, Greene BH, Timmesfeld N, et al. A meta-analysis of the randomized
controlled trials on elective neck dissection versus therapeutic neck dissection in
oral cavity cancers with clinically node-negative neck. Oral Oncol 2011;47(5):
320–4.
8. Keski-Santti H, Atula T, Tornwall J, et al. Elective neck treatment versus observa-
tion in patients with T1/T2 N0 squamous cell carcinoma of oral tongue. Oral Oncol
2006;42(1):96–101.
9. Asakage T, Yokose T, Mukai K, et al. Tumor thickness predicts cervical metas-
tasis in patients with stage I/II carcinoma of the tongue. Cancer 1998;82(8):
1443–8.
10. Po Wing Yuen A, Lam KY, Lam LK, et al. Prognostic factors of clinically stage I
and II oral tongue carcinoma–A comparative study of stage, thickness, shape,
growth pattern, invasive front malignancy grading, Martinez-Gimeno score, and
pathologic features. Head Neck 2002;24(6):513–20.
11. Fakih AR, Rao RS, Borges AM, et al. Elective versus therapeutic neck dissection
in early carcinoma of the oral tongue. Am J Surg 1989;158(4):309–13.
12. Taylor SM, Drover C, Maceachern R, et al. Is preoperative ultrasonography accu-
rate in measuring tumor thickness and predicting the incidence of cervical
metastasis in oral cancer? Oral Oncol 2010;46(1):38–41.
13. Ng SH, Yen TC, Chang JT, et al. Prospective study of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose
positron emission tomography and computed tomography and magnetic
1192 Monroe & Gross
resonance imaging in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma with palpably nega-
tive neck. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(27):4371–6.
14. Kyzas PA, Evangelou E, Denaxa-Kyza D, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron
emission tomography to evaluate cervical node metastases in patients with head
and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;
100(10):712–20.
15. Thiele OC, Seeberger R, Flechtenmacher C, et al. The role of elective supraomo-
hyoidal neck dissection in the treatment of early, node-negative oral squamous
cell carcinoma (OSCC): a retrospective analysis of 122 cases. J Craniomaxillofac
Surg 2012;40(1):67–70.
16. Kligerman J, Lima RA, Soares JR, et al. Supraomohyoid neck dissection in the
treatment of T1/T2 squamous cell carcinoma of oral cavity. Am J Surg 1994;
168(5):391–4.
17. Rodrigo JP, Shah JP, Silver CE, et al. Management of the clinically negative neck
in early-stage head and neck cancers after transoral resection. Head Neck 2011;
33(8):1210–9.
18. O’Brien CJ, Traynor SJ, McNeil E, et al. The use of clinical criteria alone in the
management of the clinically negative neck among patients with squamous cell
carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2000;126(3):360–5.
19. Kurokawa H, Yamashita Y, Takeda S, et al. Risk factors for late cervical lymph
node metastases in patients with stage I or II carcinoma of the tongue. Head
Neck 2002;24(8):731–6.
20. Hao SP, Ng SH. Magnetic resonance imaging versus clinical palpation in evalu-
ating cervical metastasis from head and neck cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck
Surg 2000;123(3):324–7.
21. Stuckensen T, Kovacs AF, Adams S, et al. Staging of the neck in patients with oral
cavity squamous cell carcinomas: a prospective comparison of PET, ultrasound,
CT and MRI. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2000;28(6):319–24.
22. Liao CT, Wang HM, Huang SF, et al. PET and PET/CT of the neck lymph nodes
improves risk prediction in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral
cavity. J Nucl Med 2011;52(2):180–7.
23. Capote A, Escorial V, Munoz-Guerra MF, et al. Elective neck dissection in early-
stage oral squamous cell carcinoma–does it influence recurrence and survival?
Head Neck 2007;29(1):3–11.
24. Cunningham MJ, Johnson JT, Myers EN, et al. Cervical lymph node metastasis
after local excision of early squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Am J
Surg 1986;152(4):361–6.
25. Franceschi D, Gupta R, Spiro RH, et al. Improved survival in the treatment of
squamous carcinoma of the oral tongue. Am J Surg 1993;166(4):360–5.
26. Haddadin KJ, Soutar DS, Oliver RJ, et al. Improved survival for patients with clin-
ically T1/T2, N0 tongue tumors undergoing a prophylactic neck dissection. Head
Neck 1999;21(6):517–25.
27. Lydiatt DD, Robbins KT, Byers RM, et al. Treatment of stage I and II oral tongue
cancer. Head Neck 1993;15(4):308–12.
28. Vandenbrouck C, Sancho-Garnier H, Chassagne D, et al. Elective versus thera-
peutic radical neck dissection in epidermoid carcinoma of the oral cavity: results
of a randomized clinical trial. Cancer 1980;46(2):386–90.
29. Yuen AP, Ho CM, Chow TL, et al. Prospective randomized study of selective neck
dissection versus observation for N0 neck of early tongue carcinoma. Head Neck
2009;31(6):765–72.
30. Andersen PE, Cambronero E, Shaha AR, et al. The extent of neck disease after
regional failure during observation of the N0 neck. Am J Surg 1996;172(6):689–91.
31. Paleri V, Rees G, Arullendran P, et al. Sentinel node biopsy in squamous cell
cancer of the oral cavity and oral pharynx: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Head
Neck 2005;27(9):739–47.
32. Civantos FJ, Zitsch RP, Schuller DE, et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy accurately
stages the regional lymph nodes for T1-T2 oral squamous cell carcinomas:
results of a prospective multi-institutional trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(8):1395–400.
33. Murer K, Huber GF, Haile SR, et al. Comparison of morbidity between sentinel
node biopsy and elective neck dissection for treatment of the n0 neck in patients
with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck 2011;33(9):1260–4.
34. Schiefke F, Akdemir M, Weber A, et al. Function, postoperative morbidity, and
quality of life after cervical sentinel node biopsy and after selective neck dissec-
tion. Head Neck 2009;31(4):503–12.
35. Iype EM, Sebastian P, Mathew A, et al. The role of selective neck dissection (I-III)
in the treatment of node negative (N0) neck in oral cancer. Oral Oncol 2008;
44(12):1134–8.
36. Ebrahimi A, Moncrieff MD, Clark JR, et al. Predicting the pattern of regional
metastases from cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck
based on location of the primary. Head Neck 2010;32(10):1288–94.
37. Duvvuri U, Simental AA Jr, D’Angelo G, et al. Elective neck dissection and
survival in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and
oropharynx. Laryngoscope 2004;114(12):2228–34.
38. Khafif RA, Gelbfish GA, Tepper P, et al. Elective radical neck dissection in epider-
moid cancer of the head and neck. A retrospective analysis of 853 cases of
mouth, pharynx, and larynx cancer. Cancer 1991;67(1):67–71.
39. D’Cruz AK, Siddachari RC, Walvekar RR, et al. Elective neck dissection for the
management of the N0 neck in early cancer of the oral tongue: need for a random-
ized controlled trial. Head Neck 2009;31(5):618–24.
40. Layland MK, Sessions DG, Lenox J. The influence of lymph node metastasis in
the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx,
and hypopharynx: N0 versus N1. Laryngoscope 2005;115(4):629–39.
41. Liu TR, Chen FJ, Yang AK, et al. Elective neck dissection in clinical stage I squa-
mous cell carcinoma of the tongue: does it improve regional control or survival
time? Oral Oncol 2011;47(2):136–41.
I ndex
Note: Page numbers of article titles are in boldface type.
A
Adenocarcinoma, sinonasal, 1129–1130, 1138
intestinal-type, classification of, 1129, 1130
staging of, 1134–1135
surgery in, 1136
World Health Organization classification of, 1130
Adenoidectomy, and/or balloon catheter dilation, in chronic rhinosinusitis in children, 998
for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, 1061
Adenotonsillectomy, for pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, 1060
Airway pressure, continuous positive, in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, 1064
Allergic rhinitis, 1045–1046
clinical assessment and diagnostic testing for, 1046–1048
environmental triggers for, 1047
risk factors for, 1046–1047
skin testing for, 1047–1048
sublingual immunotherapy for, 1045–1054
B
Balloon catheter dilation, and/or adenoidectomy, in chronic rhinosinusitis in children, 998
for medically refractory chronic frontal sinusitis, 1000–1001
in intensive care unit setting, 1001–1002
in office setting, 1001
in paranasal sinus inflammatory disease, indications for, 1002
in rhinology, 993–1004
clinical assessment of, 995–996
in children with chronic rhinosinusitis, 998–999
outcomes of, 997
versus functional endoscopic sinus surgery, 997–998
Balloon catheter techniques, overview of, 994–995
Balloon sinuplasty, 994–995
Bariatric surgery, in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, 1061–1062
C
CLEAR study, 996–997
Cochlear implants, auditory outcomes of, 960
clinical and societal outcomes of, 959–981
in adults, and elderly, studies of, 970–972
predictors of benefit of, 961–963
in children, 963
auditory performance assessments of, 963–964

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0030-6665(12)00111-9 oto.theclinics.com
0030-6665/12/$ – see front matter ª 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1196 Index
Cochlear (continued )
language development and, 965–968
outcomes after, 968–970
speech comprehension in, 964–965
studies of, 972–974
performance of, tests of, 960–961
D
Dix-Hallpike test, 927
E
Endoscopic sinus surgery, clinical assessment of, 1020–1021
drug-eluting middle meatal spacers in, 1027–1028
drug-eluting middle meatal stents in, 1028–1029
postoperative antibiotics in, 1027
postoperative care in, 1019–1032
postoperative care interventions in, 1020
postoperative in-office sinus cavity debridement following, 1022–1023
Epistaxis, adjunctive treatments in, 1012
deaths due to, prevention of, 1012–1013
diathermy in, 1008–1009
direct therapy of, 1008–1009
electrocautery in, 1008–1009
electrocoagulation in, 1008–1009
evidence based approach to, 1005–1017
initial management of, 1006–1008
interventional radiology in, 1011
ligation/embolization in, 1010–1011
literature review on, 1013–1014
management of, 1006, 1007
nasal packs or dressings in, 1009–1010
refractory acute, 1011–1012
silver nitrate cautery in, 1008
treated, 1006–1011
uncontrolled, 1006
Epley maneuver, 929–930
Esthesioneuroblastoma, 1128, 1137
surgery in, 1135
Evidence-based medicine, definition of, 1143
F
FinESS, 995
Functional endoscopic sinus surgery, 994
G
Glottic cancer, advanced-stage, chemotherapy in, 1148–1151
Index 1197
radiation therapy in, 1148–1149

treatment of, 1148–1151
early-stage, management of neck in, 1148
in situ, optimum therapy for, 1145–1146
main issues in, 1143–1144
management of, 1143–1161
mid-vocal fold, involving anterior commissure, treatment of, 1146–1147
optimum therapy for, 1146
radiography in, 1113–1114
T2, optimum therapy for, 1147–1148
treatment of, follow-up for, 1151–1153
Glottic incompetence, in hoarseness/dysphonia, 1118–1119
Gufoni maneuver, 935
H
Hearing loss, sensorineural. See Sensorineural hearing loss.
Hoarseness/dysphonia, assessment of dysphonia in, 1114–1115
clinical assessment in, 1110–1115
diagnostic testing in, 1113–1114
glottic incompetence in, 1118–1119
laryngeal electromyography in, 1113
laryngoscopy in, 1111, 1112–1113
laryngostroboscopy in, 1112
management of dysphonia in, 1115–1119
medical therapy in, 1116–1118
radiography in, 1113–1114
surgical therapy in, 1118–1119
visualization of larynx in, 1111–1112
voice therapy in, 1115–1116
I
Immunotherapy, sublingual, for allergic rhinitis, 1045–1054
L
LacriCATH system, 995
Laryngeal cancer, definition of, 1150
Laryngeal electromyography, in hoarseness/dysphonia, 1113
in unilateral vocal cord paralysis, 1089–1090
Laryngeal nerve, recurrent, in thyroid cancer, management of, 1166–1167
Laryngeal reinnervation, in unilateral vocal cord paralysis, 1097–1098
versus medialization thyroplasty, in vocal cord paralysis, 1096
Lempert roll maneuver, 934
M
Maxillary expansion, rapid, in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, 1063
1198 Index
Medialization thyroplasty, in unilateral vocal cord paralysis, 1090–1098

versus laryngeal reinnervation, in vocal cord paralysis, 1096
Melanoma, sinonasal, 1128–1129, 1137
surgery in, 1135–1136
Middle meatal spacers, drug-eluting, in endoscopic sinus surgery, 1027–1028
Middle meatal stents, drug-eluting, in endoscopic sinus surgery, 1028–1029
N
Nasal obstruction, acoustic rhinometry in, 1037
computational fluid dynamics for, 1037–1038
imaging studies for, 1037
measures of, in nasal value compromise, 1036–1038
Nasal valves, compromise of, 1033
history and physical examination in, 1035
measures of nasal obstruction in, 1036–1038
internal and external, locations and components of, 1033–1035
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma, 1129, 1138
surgery in, 1136
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma surgery, in sinonasal and skull base cancer, 1136
O
Obstructive sleep apnea, pediatric, 1055–1069
adenoidectomy for, 1061
adenotonsillectomy for, 1060
bariatric surgery in, 1061–1062
clinical history in, 1057–1058
continuous positive airway pressure in, 1064
epidemiology of, 1056
medical treatment for, 1062–1063
oximetry in, 1059–1060
polysomnography in, 1058–1059
rapid maxillary expansion in, 1063
risk factors for, 1056
untreated, sequelae to, 1056–1057
Oral cavity, early-stage squamous cell carcinoma of, clinical node-negative neck in,
assessment of neck in, 1185–1186
elective neck dissection versus observation in, 1186–1183
risk of occult nodal disease in, 1182–1183, 1184
sentinel lymph node biopsy in, 1188–1190
treatment threshold in, 1182
Oximetry, in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, 1060
P
Polysomnography, for sleep-disordered breathing, 1073–1074
in pediatric obstructive sleep apnea, 1058–1059
Index 1199
R
Reflux, in sinusitis, 983–992
Rhinitis, allergic. See Allergic rhinitis.
Rhinology, balloon catheter dilation in. See Balloon catheter dilation, in rhinology.
Rhinometry, acoustic, in nasal obstruction, 1037
Rhinoplasty, functional, 1033–1043
American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and, 1040
outcome measures of, 1038–1039
surgical technique for, 1039
Rhinosinusitis, chronic, 983–984, 1019–1020
adult medically refractory, surgical technique in, 996–998
background of, 993–994
balloon catheter dilation and/or adenoidectomy for, in children, 998
clinical management of, evidence-based, 984–990
medical management of, evidence-based, 990–991
medically recalcitrant, frontal sinus disease in, 999–1000
in children, balloon catheter dilation in, 998
limited, 999
nasal saline irrigation in, 1021–1022
pediatric medically refractory, surgical technique in, 998–999
systemic steroids in, 1025–1026
topical nasal steroids in, 1023–1025
S
Saline irrigation, nasal, in chronic rhinosinusitis, 1021–1022
Sensorineural hearing loss, 941–944
adult, audiometric testing in, 946
auditory brainstem response in, 946
autoimmune inner ear disease and, 948–949
clinical assessment of, evidence-based, 945–949
computed tomography in, 947
infectious diseases and, 948
laboratory tests in, 947–948
magnetic resonance imaging in, 947
vestibular assessment in, 946
antiviral therapy in, 950
asymmetric, management of, 951
asymmetrical/unilateral, 945
causes of, 942–944
hyperbaric oxygen in, 950
oral corticosteroids in, 949
rapidly progressive, 945
rheopheresis in, 950
sudden, 944–945
management of, 949
transtympanic corticosteroids in, 949–950
Sermont maneuver, 931
Sinonasal adenocarcinoma. See Adenocarcinoma, sinonasal.
1200 Index
Sinonasal and skull base cancer, 1127–1128

esthesioneuroblastoma surgery in, 1135
incidence and epidemiology of, 1128–1131
nasopharyngeal carcinoma surgery in, 1136
sinonasal adenocarcinoma surgery in, 1136
sinonasal melanoma surgery in, 1135–1136
sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma surgery in, 1137
Sinonasal cancers, endoscopic resection of, 1137
Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma, 1131, 1138
staging of, 1135
surgery in, 1137
Sinus surgery, endoscopic. See Endoscopic sinus surgery.
Sinusitis. See also Rhinosinusitis.
reflux in, 983–992
and related sinonasal disorders, 986–988
in adults, 988–990
in children, 984–986
Skull base resection, endoscopic, for malignancy, 1127–1142
Sleep, pediatric, normative data for, 1058
Sleep apnea, obstructive. See Obstructive sleep apnea.
Sleep-disordered breathing, partial tonsillectomy for, 1060–1061
polysomnography for, 1073–1074
Squamous cell carcinoma, early-stage, of oral cavity. See Oral cavity, early-stage
squamous cell carcinoma of.
Steroids, systemic, in chronic rhinosinusitis, 1025–1026
topical nasal, in chronic rhinosinusitis, 1021–1022
T
Thyroid cancer, biopsy in, 1165
central neck dissection in, 1167
in known nodal involvement, 1167–1179
prophylactic or elective, 1169–1171
computed tomography in, 1165
imaging in, 1164–1165
lateral neck dissection in, 1172–1173
magnetic resonance imaging in, 1165
microcarcinoma versus macrocarcinoma, surgery in, 1166
positron emission tomography in, 1165
recurrent laryngeal nerve in, management of, 1166–1167
staging of, 1164
surgery in, extent of resection in, 1165–1166
ultrasonography in, 1164
well-differentiated, management of, 1163–1179
Tonsillectomy, partial, for sleep-disordered breathing, 1060–1061
pediatric, 1071–1081
evidence for, 1077
indications for, 1072
intracapsular, 1074–1075
postoperative hemorrhage in, 1075–1076
Index 1201
postoperative management of, 1075

sleep-disordered breathing following, 1076
total, outcomes of, 1074
via cold dissection, 1074
via electrosurgery, 1074
Tonsils, pediatric, clinical assessment of, 1072–1073
V
Vertigo, as symptom, 925–926
benign paroxysaml positional, lateral canal, repositioning maneuvers for, 935–936
natural remission of, 929
posterior canal, repositioning maneuvers for, 929–931
surgical treatment for, 931–936
posterior semicircular canal plugging for, 933, 934
singular nerve section for, 931–934
benign paroxysmal positional, 926
diagnostic maneuvers for, limitations of, 929
of lateral canal, diagnosis of, 928
of posterior canal, diagnosis of, 927
differential diagnosis of, 926
Vocal cord paralysis, unilateral, causes of, 1084
distribution of, 1085
evaluation and management of, 1083–1108
examination for, 1086
idiopathic, natural history of, 1085–1086
imaging for, 1088–1089
injection medialization in, 1090–1094
laryngeal electromyography in, 1089–1090
laryngeal reinnervation in, 1097–1098
versus medialization thyroplasty, 1096
medialization thyroplasty in, 1098
versus laryngeal reinnervation in, 1096
positron emission tomography in, 1088
quality of life and, 1086
serology in, 1089
symptoms of, 1086
ultrasound in, 1088
voice therapy in, 1090
Voice therapy, in hoarseness/dysphonia, 1115–1116
in unilateral vocal cord paralysis, 1090

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice in Otolaryngology 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice in Otolaryngology 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice in Otolaryngology 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice in Otolaryngology

TIMOTHY L. SMITH, MD, MPH, FACS

M.L. BARNES, FRCS-ORL(ED), MD

PETE S. BATRA, MD, FACS

JOHN J.W. CHO, MD

NEIL D. GROSS, MD, FACS

DANA M. HARTL, MD, PhD

STACEY L. ISHMAN, MD, MPH

RODRIGO MARTINEZ-MONEDERO, MD, PhD

ALBERT L. MERATI, MD, FACS

STEPHANIE MISONO, MD, MPH

VIKASH K. MODI, MD, FAAP

ANH T. NGUYEN-HUYNH, MD, PhD

KARIN P.Q. OOMEN, MD, PhD

JOHN S. RHEE, MD, MPH

RODNEY J. SCHLOSSER, MD, FAAOA

SETH R. SCHWARTZ, MD, MPH

TIMOTHY L. SMITH, MD, MPH

P.M. SPIELMANN, FRCS-ORL(Ed)

MICHAEL G. STEWART, MD, MPH

P.S. WHITE, FRACS, FRCS(Ed), MBChB

SARAH K. WISE, MD, MSCR, FAAOA

Preface: Clinical Decision-Making Based on Evidence xiii

Evidence-Based Practice: Management of Vertigo 925

Evidence-Based Practice: Management of Adult Sensorineural Hearing Loss 941

Cochlear Implants: Clinical and Societal Outcomes 959

Evidence-Based Practice: Reflux in Sinusitis 983

Evidence-Based Practice: Balloon Catheter Dilation in Rhinology 993

Epistaxis: A Contemporary Evidence Based Approach 1005

Evidence-Based Practice: Postoperative Care in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery 1019

Evidence-Based Practice: Functional Rhinoplasty 1033

Evidence-Based Practice: Sublingual Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis 1045

immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic rhinitis is reviewed, with subsequent at-

Evidence-Based Practice: Pediatric Obstructive Sleep Apnea 1055

Evidence-Based Practice: Pediatric Tonsillectomy 1071

Evidence-Based Practice: Evaluation and Management of Unilateral Vocal

Otolaryngology Clinic of North America: Evidence-Based Practice Management

laryngostroboscopy, laryngeal imaging, laryngeal electromyography, and

Evidence-Based Practice: Endoscopic Skull Base Resection for Malignancy 1127

Evidence-Based Practice: Management of Glottic Cancer 1143

Management of Well-Differentiated Thyroid Cancer 1163

Evidence-Based Practice: Management of the Clinical Node-Negative Neck in

FORTHCOMING ISSUES RECENT ISSUES

NOW AVAILABLE FOR YOUR iPhone and iPad

Timothy L. Smith, MD, MPH, FACS

Timothy L. Smith, MD, MPH, FACS

Otolaryngol Clin N Am 45 (2012) xiii

Anh T. Nguyen-Huynh, MD, PhD

Otolaryngol Clin N Am 45 (2012) 925–940

favored restricting vertigo to describe a sensation of spinning or turning only, 40% of

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

Otological Conditions Neurological Conditions Others

EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL ASSESSMENT

Diagnosis of Lateral Canal BPPV

Limitations of Diagnostic Maneuvers for BPPV

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICAL AND SURGICAL MANAGEMENT

Repositioning Maneuvers for Posterior Canal BPPV

differences are due to differences in patient populations, reporting of symptoms, or

cervical motion after treatment,39,40 whereas others did not.15,41 A meta-analysis

Standard pure-tone audiometry and speech discrimination testing are essential

There is insufficient evidence to recommend antiviral therapy as primary or