ABSTRACT
Vocal fold fat injection is a technique for treating glottic insufficiency (GI) resulting from various conditions. The use of fat as a graft has several advantages over other grafts. Similar pliability, and vibratory characteristics as a normal vocal fold, not causing foreign body reactions, having the potential to contain stem cells, and often can be done in the office. Long-term results, however, are unpredictable. The objective of this study is to carry out a systematic review of published articles using the technique of fat injection in the vocal folds. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. REVIEW METHODS: A literature search was conducted utilizing the combination of the following keywords "vocal folds fat injection," "laryngoplasty," and "autologous fat injection vocal folds." The criteria inclusion of the study for the systematic review were based on PICOTS (population, intervention, comparison outcome, timing, and setting) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statements. Outcomes reviewed included technique, study duration, perceptual and acoustic analysis, and quality of life preoperation and 1-year postoperation. RESULTS: A systematic review on PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases included 13 studies analyzing the data of 472 patients, that had fat injection laryngoplasty for treatment of GI. The causes of GI varied substantially across studies. Considerable heterogeneity across studies was found, including technique for harvest, processing the fat, site of injection, and acoustic analysis. In the studies that measured maximum phonation time (MPT) there was a significant improvement in a follow-up of at least 1 year after the injection. The patient's perception of vocal quality, measured by the Voice Handicap Index, also showed significant improvement in several studies after fat injection laryngoplasty. CONCLUSION: Fat injection laryngoplasty seems to be safe and effective for GI for at least 12 months. Multiple studies show favorable outcomes, but the lack of control groups, the heterogeneity in inclusion criteria, nonstandardized techniques, and objective voice evaluations limit this evaluation.
