Complications of Polydimethylsiloxane for Injection Laryngoplasty: Retrospective Case Series of 10 Patients Requiring Explant and Literature Review.

Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) has been reported in the literature as a safe and permanent material for injection laryngoplasty (IL)1 We present a case series of 10 patients who had undergone PDMS-IL at external campuses which resulted in unsatisfactory voice outcomes and were managed with explant. A literature review on PDMS-IL associated complications is presented. In our series, seven out of ten patients (70%) with voice outcomes data, developed an improved voice post PDMS explant. Seven out of ten patients (70%) had improved vocal fold pliability with two patients (20%) having irretrievably damaged pliability due to the PDMS disturbing the superficial lamina propria. All eight patients with specimens submitted for histopathology had foreign body inflammation reported. There were ten additional cases reported in the literature with post PDMS adverse outcomes managed with explant. In the literature, explant improved the voice in seven out of nine patients (78%) with reported voice outcomes and partially restored vocal fold pliability in five out of six patients (83%) which commented on this outcome. PDMS-IL carries a risk of irreversible loss of vocal fold pliability which should be informed to the patient as part of the preoperative informed consent.

Cryptococcal Laryngitis: Three Cases Managed With Potassium-Titanyl-Phosphate Laser and Literature Review.

OBJECTIVES: To present three case reports of cryptococcal laryngitis managed with potassium-titanyl-phosphate (KTP) laser, where only one case managed with KTP laser has previously been published to date to our knowledge. Further, to systematically review the medical literature and describe the epidemiology, clinical assessment, treatment, and prognosis of laryngeal cryptococcosis. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and OVID MEDLINE databases were searched using the terms "cryptococcal laryngitis" or "cryptococcus" and "larynx or laryngeal." RESULTS: Thirty-eight cases were identified. The median age was 65 years with a 1 male:1.2 female ratio. Thirty-six cases (95%) presented with hoarseness. Twenty-one cases (55%) were systemically immunosuppressed and 19 (50%) were taking an inhaled corticosteroid. This paper lists the five clinical features (i. white exudate or lesion; ii. exophytic, verrucous or tumor-like mass; iii. diffuse erythema; iv. mucosal irregularity; v. thickened vocal fold) and four pathologic features or tests (i. Grocott Gomori Methenamine stain; ii. Mucicarmine stain; iii. fungal or yeast organisms; iv. fungal culture) that encompass 97% of cases of cryptococcal laryngitis reported in the medical literature. In 34 cases (89%), antifungal therapy was given. Four cases (11%) had excisional biopsy and 11 (29%) received combined surgery and medical therapy. There was uncomplicated resolution in 24 cases (63%). CONCLUSION: Cryptococcal laryngitis is a rare cause of hoarseness that may be mistaken for malignancy or may be a manifestation of disseminated cryptococcal infection or underlying immunosuppression. Clinicians should be aware of the diagnostic features of cryptococcal laryngitis to facilitate diagnosis and treatment to prevent complicated disease and overly aggressive treatment.

Correction and response to: Grommets in HBOT patients: GA vs. LA, unanswered questions.

We thank Gibbs and Commons for their interest in our paper. There is a key difference between the datasets for Commons et al and our study. Our data set, has grouped five years of data according to the calendar year. This is different from Commons et al's study population recruited between 01 June 2009 and 31 May 2010. We feel this may explain the difference of one case between the two papers in 2010. Our data collection used the standard clinic and operating theatre databases, and we were advised that there was no searchable clinical code for grommet procedures undertaken with local anaesthetic (LA) in the outpatient clinic. The alternative, to review many hundreds of patients, was considered beyond the study's scope. Instead, the TTH Hyperbaric Medicine Unit (HMU) database was used to recruit cases and cross checked with operating theatre data. We have since re-investigated the operating theatre database to identify any additional bilateral grommet procedures during 2008 to 2012 and cross checked these with the HMU database. This has identified one to four additional patients per year in the general anaesthesia (GA) group and one additional LA patient that meet the criteria for recruitment into the study. There was one further unconfirmed patient from each of 2008 and 2010, whose charts were unavailable for this response, and have not been included in this amendment. The corrected Figure 1 reflects these changes. Despite the additional cases, the frequency spike during 2010 remains. A published audit of the number of middle ear barotrauma (MEBT) cases between 2007-2010 also reports an increased incidence of MEBT in 2009-2010 compared with previous years at our unit. Possible reasons for this may be the introduction of new technology at the unit, in the form of the digital Macro View™ otoscope during this period, leading to a possible change in clinical practice and an increased detection of MEBT, or a lower threshold for ENT referral for grommet placement. Alternatively, a 'Hawthorne effect' from the conduct of a prospective study within the TTH HMU, during 2009-2010 may be considered. With the outliers removed using ROUT's test, the significant difference in the delay time to surgery remains (LA median 1, IQR 2, range 0-5 days; GA median 7.5, IQR 6, range 0-24 days; P < 0.0001; Figure 2). The data values of 98 days and 86 days from the GA group published in our paper are corrected to six days and 12 days respectively. On review, the first individual was found to have had two HBOT courses, and it was only in the second round of HBOT that an ENT referral for grommets was made. The second individual was found to have been offered two ENT referrals after experiencing MEBT, the first was followed by the patient declining further HBOT until representing to TTH HMU four months later and receiving prophylactic grommets before recommencing HBOT; this second ENT referral date has been used in the amended data. These corrections have not been found to change the primary outcome of statistical significance between the LA and GA groups. A delay of seven days may not be considered clinically relevant in the most common cases requiring HBOT, aside from affecting patient convenience and logistics as well as hospital efficiency and resources. In emergency cases, knowledge of factors able to reduce the delay for grommet insertion is clinically relevant. In centres where a long wait for GA is the norm, LA may convey a clinically important lesser waiting time. As a retrospective study, only data documented in the patient records could be studied, and patient discomfort was not consistently recorded in the charts. We would liken this to undertaking other surgical procedures, where clinicians often do not routinely document pain scores for the benefit of retrospective research. Several studies have examined patients' tolerance of grommets under LA, finding the technique tolerable.

Retrospective review of grommet procedures under general versus local anaesthesia among patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

INTRODUCTION: One significant side effect of hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) is middle ear barotrauma (MEBT) may require tympanostomy tube (grommet) insertion by the Ear, Nose and Throat service. Where timely HBOT is needed, routine insertion of grommets under local anaesthesia (LA) is becoming common. AIMS: To investigate the differences between patients receiving HBOT and concurrent grommets under LA versus general anesthesia (GA) at The Townsville Hospital (TTH). METHODS: A retrospective chart analysis of patients receiving HBOT between 2008 and 2012 and requiring grommets was undertaken. RESULTS: Thirty-one (5%) out of 685 patients treated with HBOT from 2008 to 2012 received grommets. Twelve cases received grommets under LA, and 19 under GA. Twenty out of the 31 cases had grommets following MEBT and the remainder prophylactically. Complications of grommet insertion comprised two cases with blocked grommets. There was a significant difference (P = 0.005) in the time in days from ENT referral to HBOT between the LA group (median 1 day, range 0-13 days) and the GA group (median 8 days, range 0-98 days). CONCLUSION: A greater number of hyperbaric patients received grommets under GA than LA at the TTH. Insertion of grommets under LA was safe, offering advantages to both the patient and the treating team in the setting of HBOT-associated otic barotrauma.