Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:09:35.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Routine use of salivary bypass tubes in laryngectomy patients: systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2018

Y Kamhieh ,
H Fox ,
E Hallett  and
S Berry
Y Kamhieh*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, Wales, UK
H Fox
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
E Hallett
Affiliation:
ENT Department, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK
S Berry
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant, Wales, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Ms Yasmine Kamhieh, ENT Department, Morriston Hospital, Swansea SA6 6NL, Wales, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Pharyngocutaneous fistula is a cause of significant morbidity following laryngectomy. Routine use of salivary bypass tubes during laryngectomy has been proposed to reduce the incidence of fistulae and neopharyngeal strictures.

Method:

Following a systematic search of Embase, Medline and Cochrane databases (1946 – current), included articles were assessed for bias according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Results:

Three case–control trials showed reduced pharyngocutaneous fistula rates with the use of salivary bypass tubes; six case series reported widely varied fistula rates. With regards to stricture rates, the largest case–control trial found no improvement with salivary bypass tube use. No fatal adverse events were observed among the 204 patients who received a salivary bypass tube.

Conclusion:

Low-level evidence suggests salivary bypass tubes may reduce the incidence of fistula in high-risk patient groups. A robust randomised controlled trial, or large, multicentre cohort studies, are needed to further examine this intervention.

Keywords

LaryngectomySalivaStentsCutaneous FistulaStrictureMorbidity
Type
Review Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 5 , May 2018 , pp. 380 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented orally at the American Head & Neck Society Meeting, 16–20 July 2016, Seattle, Washington, USA, and as a poster at the Wales Otorhinolaryngology Association Meeting, 7 October 2016, Saundersfoot, Wales, UK.

References

1Markou, KD, Vlachtsis, KC, Nikolaou, AC, Petridis, DG, Kouloulas, AI, Daniilidis, IC. Incidence and predisposing factors of pharyngocutaneous fistula formation after total laryngectomy. Is there a relationship with tumor recurrence? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2004;261:61–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Lavertu, P, Guay, ME, Meeker, SS, Kmiecik, JR, Secic, M, Wanamaker, JR et al. Secondary tracheoesophageal puncture: factors predictive of voice quality and prosthesis use. Head Neck 1996;18:393–8Google Scholar
3Higgins, JP, Green, S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. London: Cochrane Collaboration, 2011Google Scholar
4Punthakee, X, Zaghi, S, Nabili, V, Knott, PD, Blackwell, KE. Effects of salivary bypass tubes on fistula and stricture formation. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013;15:219–25Google Scholar
5Bondi, S, Giordano, L, Limardo, P, Bussi, M. Role of Montgomery salivary stent placement during pharyngolaryngectomy, to prevent pharyngocutaneous fistula in high-risk patients. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:54–7Google Scholar
6León, X, Quer, M, Burgués, J. Montgomery salivary bypass tube in the reconstruction of the hypopharynx: cost-benefit study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999;108:864–8Google Scholar
7Varvares, MA, Cheney, ML, Gliklich, RE, Boyd, JM, Goldsmith, T, Lazor, J et al. Use of the radial forearm fasciocutaneous free flap and montgomery salivary bypass tube for pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. Head Neck 2000;22:463–8Google Scholar
8Spriano, G, Pellini, R, Roselli, R. Pectoralis major myocutaneous flap for hypopharyngeal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;110:1408–13Google Scholar
9Murray, DJ, Gilbert, RW, Vesely, MJ, Novak, CB, Zaitlin-Gencher, S, Clark, JR et al. Functional outcomes and donor site morbidity following circumferential pharyngoesophageal reconstruction using an anterolateral thigh flap and salivary bypass tube. Head Neck 2007;29:147–54Google Scholar
10López, F, Obeso, S, Camporro, D, Fueyo, Á, Suárez, C, Llorente, JL. Outcomes following pharyngolaryngectomy with fasciocutaneous free flap reconstruction and salivary bypass tube. Laryngoscope 2013;123:591–6Google Scholar
11Fabian, RL. Pectoralis major myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the laryngopharynx and cervical esophagus. Laryngoscope 1988;98:1227–31Google Scholar
12Jegoux, F, Ferron, C, Malard, O, Espitalier, F. Reconstruction of circumferential pharyngolaryngectomy using a ‘horseshoe-shaped’ pectoralis major myocutaneous flap. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:483–8Google Scholar
13Azizzadeh, B, Yafai, S, Rawnsley, JD, Abemayor, E, Sercarz, JA, Calcaterra, TC et al. Radial forearm free flap pharyngoesophageal reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2001;111:807–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Andrades, P, Pehler, SF, Baranano, CF, Magnuson, JS, Carroll, WR, Rosenthal, EL. Fistula analysis after radial forearm free flap reconstruction of hypopharyngeal defects. Laryngoscope 2008;118:1157–63.Google Scholar
15Clark, JR, Gilbert, R, Irish, J, Brown, D, Neligan, P, Gullane, PJ. Morbidity after flap reconstruction of hypopharyngeal defects. Laryngoscope 2006;116:173–81Google Scholar
16Yu, P, Hanasono, MM, Skoracki, RJ, Baumann, DP, Lewin, JS, Weber, RS et al. Pharyngoesophageal reconstruction with the anterolateral thigh flap after total laryngopharyngectomy. Cancer 2010;116:1718–24Google Scholar
17Morrissey, AT, O'Connell, DA, Garg, S, Seikaly, H, Harris, JR. Radial forearm versus anterolateral thigh free flaps for laryngopharyngectomy defects: prospective, randomized trial. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;39:448–53Google Scholar
18Guimarães, AV, Aires, FT, Dedivitis, RA, Kulcsar, MA, Ramos, DM, Cernea, CR et al. Efficacy of pectoralis major muscle flap for pharyngocutaneous fistula prevention in salvage total laryngectomy: a systematic review. Head Neck 2016;38(suppl 1):E2317–21Google Scholar
19Nakatsuka, T, Harii, K, Asato, H, Ebihara, S, Yoshizumi, T, Saikawa, M. Comparative evaluation in pharyngo-oesophageal reconstruction: radial forearm flap compared with jejunal flap. A 10-year experience. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 1998;32:307–10Google Scholar
20Scharpf, J, Esclamado, RM. Reconstruction with radial forearm flaps after ablative surgery for hypopharyngeal cancer. Head Neck 2003;25:261–6Google Scholar
21Inman, JC, Kim, P, McHugh, R. Retroesophageal subclavian artery--esophageal fistula: a rare complication of a salivary bypass tube. Head Neck 2008;30:1120–3Google Scholar
22Bitter, T, Pantel, M, Dittmar, Y, Guntinas-Lichius, O, Wittekindt, C. Stent migration to the ileum--a potentially lethal complication after montgomery salivary bypass tube placement for hypopharyngeal stenosis after laryngectomy. Head Neck 2012;34:135–7Google Scholar
23McWhorter, V, Dunn, JC, Teitell, MA. Aortoesophageal fistula as a complication of Montgomery salivary bypass tube. J Pediatr Surg 2005;40:742–4Google Scholar