4.5 Article

Comparative Treatment Outcomes for Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis: 5-Year Update

Journal

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
Volume 168, Issue 6, Pages 1570-1575

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ohn.190

Keywords

cricotracheal; dilation; dyspnea; endoscopic resection; idiopathic; iSGS; laryngology; subglottic stenosis; tracheal resection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The North American Airway Collaborative (NoAAC) conducted a 5-year prospective cohort study on treatment effectiveness of three surgical techniques for idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS). The study included 487 iSGS patients and found variations in treatment effectiveness between the different modalities. Cricotracheal resection had the lowest rate of recurrent operation (5%), followed by endoscopic resection with adjuvant medical therapy (30%) and endoscopic dilation (50%). These findings provide valuable information for healthcare providers and patients in making treatment decisions.
The North American Airway Collaborative (NoAAC) previously published a 3-year multi-institutional prospective cohort study showing variation in treatment effectiveness between 3 primary surgical techniques for idiopathic subglottic stenosis (iSGS). In this report, we update these findings to include 5 years of data evaluating treatment effectiveness. Patients in the NoAAC cohort were re-enrolled for 2 additional years and followed using the prespecified published protocol. Consistent with prior data, prospective observation of 487 iSGS patients for 5 years showed treatment effectiveness differed by modality. Cricotracheal resection maintained the lowest rate of recurrent operation (5%), followed by endoscopic resection with adjuvant medical therapy (30%) and endoscopic dilation (50%). These data support the initial observations and continue to provide value to providers and patients navigating longitudinal decision-making.Level of evidence: 2-prospective cohort study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available