Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning curve of medialization thyroplasty using a Montgomery™ implant

  • Laryngology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Type I thyroplasty—also called medialization thyroplasty (MT)—is considered as an effective treatment for glottic incompetence in general and for abductor vocal fold palsy in particular. In the past there have been some concerns about the experience a laryngeal framework surgeon should have in order achieve an acceptable voice outcome. To assess the learning curve of MT performed using the Montgomery® hard silicone implant. A retrospective study involving 36 patients divided into three consecutive groups (1, 2, 3) of 12 MT patients or six consecutive groups (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b) of six MT patients. Outcome measures: acoustic and aerodynamic outcome improvements (δ) compared to the duration of intervention [operative times (OT)]. Data were analysed by Anova, Kuskal Wallis and χ 2 statistical tests, according to data distributions. OT decreased significantly between groups 1, 2 and 3 with a mean OT of 90.5′, 71.5′ and 56′ (p < 0.001), respectively. Objective δ such as maximum phonation time (MPT) (p 0.376), Estimated Sub-Glottic Pressure (ESPG) (p: 0.675) Shimmer (p: 0.543) and Jitter (p: 0.709) did not show significant improvement. Only the voice handicap index (VHI) δ of group 2 showed significant improvement (p 0.005) compared with the two other groups 1 and 3. Surgeon experience decreases the OT significantly. On the other hand, our study did not show a correlation between surgeon experience and voice outcome measures improvemnts (MPT, ESGP, Shimmer, Jitter).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Montgomery WW, Blaugrund SM, Varvares MA (1993) Thyroplasty: a new approach. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102(8 Pt 1):571–579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Montgomery WW, Montgomery SK (1997) Montgomery thyroplasty implant system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 170:1–16

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, Van De Heyning P, Remacle M, Woisard V, Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) (2001) A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258(2):77–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shen T, Damrose EJ, Morzaria S (2013) A meta-analysis of voice outcome comparing calcium hydroxylapatite injection laryngoplasty to silicone thyroplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 148(2):197–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ryu IS, Nam SY, Han MW, Choi SH, Kim SY, Roh JL (2012) Long-term voice outcomes after thyroplasty for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 138(4):347–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sridhara SR, Ashok KG, Raghunathan M, Mann SB (2003) To study voice quality before and after thyroplasty type 1 in patients with symptomatic unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Am J Otolaryngol 24(6):361–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Matar N, Remacle M, Bachy V, Lawson G, Giovanni A, Lejoly-Devuyst V, Legou T (2012) Objective measurement of real time subglottic pressure during medicalization thyroplasty: a feasibility study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269(4):1171–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Storck C, Fischer C, Cecon M, Schmid S, Gambazzi F, Wolfensberger M, Brockmann M (2010) Hydroxyapatite versus titanium implant: Comparison of the functional outcome after vocal fold medialization in unilateral recurrent nerve paralysis. Head Neck 32(12):1605–1612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Laccourreye O, Benkhatar H, Ménard M (2012) Lack of adverse events after medialization laryngoplasty with the Montgomery thyroplasty implant in patients with unilateral laryngeal nerve paralysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 121(11):701–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Laccourreye O, El Sharkawy L, Holsinger FC, Hans S, Ménard M, Brasnu D (2005) Thyroplasty type I with Montgomery implant among native French language speakers with unilateral laryngeal nerve paralysis. Laryngoscope 115(8):1411–1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Devos M, Schultz P, Guilleré F, Debry C (2010) Thyroplasty for unilateral vocal fold paralysis using an adjustable implant in porous titanium. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 127(6):204–212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van Ardenne N, Vanderwegen J, Van Nuffelen G, De Bodt M, Van de Heyning P (2011) Medialization thyroplasty: vocal outcome of silicone and titanium implant. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268(1):101–107. doi:10.1007/s00405-010-1327-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosen CA (1998) Complications of phonosurgery: results of a national survey. Laryngoscope 108(11 Pt 1):1697–1703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Young VN, Zullo TG, Rosen CA (2010) Analysis of laryngeal framework surgery: 10-year follow-up to a national survey. Laryngoscope 120(8):1602–1608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Authors deny any conflict of interest or financial interest with mentioned organization or company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otolaryngolgy, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Voice and Swallowing Clinic, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, 10 avenue Hippocrate, 1200, Brussels, Belgium

    G. Desuter & D. Boucquey

  2. Institute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

    S. Henrard

  3. Anesthesiology Department, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium

    M. Van Boven

  4. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD19SY, UK

    Q. Gardiner

  5. Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Department, Cliniques Universitaires de Mont-Godinne, Université Catholique de Louvain, Yvoir, Belgium

    M. Remacle

Authors
  1. G. Desuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Henrard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Boucquey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Van Boven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Q. Gardiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Remacle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Desuter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Desuter, G., Henrard, S., Boucquey, D. et al. Learning curve of medialization thyroplasty using a Montgomery™ implant. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272, 385–390 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3292-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3292-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation