Evidence Hub

A Systematic Review on Surgical Treatments for Sulcus Vocalis and Vocal Fold Scar

Medeiros N, Castro MEM, van Lith-Bijl JT, Desuter GRR

The Laryngoscope, 2022

617 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Vocal fold sulcus and scars are benign vocal fold lesions that present as a challenge to the laryngologist. A number of different surgical techniques have been proposed, aiming at restoring the lamina propria (LP), closing the glottal gap, or both. This study aimed to provide a systematic review of surgical treatment for sulcus and scar and to propose a new classification for these techniques.

STUDY DESIGN: A literature search using MEDLINE and Google Scholar through August 2020.

METHODS: Data on study design were retrieved and outcomes were classified as acoustic, aerodynamic, self-reported, perceptual, and stroboscopic. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORs criteria. Each technique was classified as direct, indirect, or combined.

RESULTS: Our search included 31 studies with a total of 617 patients. Direct techniques included dissection, graft interposition, or LP regeneration/scar degradation while indirect techniques aimed for glottal gap closure. Only one article performed a comparison between different types of techniques and only eight studied the five types of outcomes. No superiority of any technique was noted in our analysis. Self-reported outcomes were the most frequently improved.

CONCLUSIONS: There seems to not exist a one-fits-all treatment for this clinical picture and no clear decision-making pattern. A recent trend toward sequential approaches, starting with less invasive procedures, can be observed. Laryngoscope,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 617 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free