Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-0915-2369
Evaluation des Therapieerfolges bei Kontaktgranulomen
Evaluation of treatment modalities for contact granulomasPublication History
13 August 2018
29 April 2019
Publication Date:
26 June 2019 (online)
Zusammenfassung
Einleitung Für Kontaktgranulome (KG) existieren nur heterogene Therapiemodalitäten, deren Wirksamkeit nicht abschließend bewiesen ist. Ziel unserer Untersuchung war es, Risikofaktoren für KG zu erfassen sowie den Therapieerfolg zu evaluieren.
Methode Es erfolgte eine retrospektive Analyse an 79 Patienten mit einem KG. Es wurden bei Erstkontrolle (EK) 3–4 Monate, bei Zweitkontrolle (ZK) 6–8 Monate und bei Letztkontrolle (LK) durchschnittlich 13 Monate nach Erstvorstellung ein möglicher gastrolaryngealer Reflux sowie die Symptome (Räusperneigung, Heiserkeit, hypertone Fehlkompensation) erfasst und eine Videolaryngostroboskopie durchgeführt. Das erfolgte Therapieverfahren (Räusperverbot, Stimmtherapie, Antazidatherapie, operative Abtragung oder Kombinationen) wurde dokumentiert. Bei der EK, ZK und LK wurden die „Komplette Remissionsgruppe“ und die „Inkomplette Remissionsgruppe“ hinsichtlich der Symptome, Befunde und der angewandten Therapie statistisch miteinander verglichen.
Ergebnisse Räuspern war ein wichtiger Cofaktor für die Entstehung eines KG. Obwohl sich kein überlegenes Therapieverfahren bei unserem Kollektiv ergab, fand sich eine Gesamtremissionsrate in ca. ⅔ der Fälle. Auch in der „Inkomplette Remissionsgruppe“ ließen sich die Beschwerden der Patienten deutlich senken. Chirurgische Abtragungen von KG neigten signifikant häufiger zu Rezidiven.
Diskussion Auch wenn sich kein überlegenes Therapieverfahren in unserem Kollektiv herauskristallisierte, empfehlen wir bei KG eine symptomatische Therapie mit gutem Erfolg. Primäre chirurgische Abtragungen sind wegen der Rezidivneigung nicht empfehlenswert.
Abstract
Introduction There are merely heterogenous therapy modalities for contact granulomas (CG) without evidenced efficacy. The intention of our study was to evaluate possible risk factors as well as to demonstrate therapeutic successful approaches.
Methods Based on a retrospective analysis on 79 patients with CG we evaluated personal data for the first patient contact, for the first follow-up appointment (FA) averaged 3–4 months after the first contact, for the second follow-up appointment (SA) averaged 6–8 months after the first contact and for the last follow-up (LA) averaged 13 months after the first contact with collecting information concerning a possible gastrolaryngeal reflux disease as well as symptoms like harrumphing, hoarseness, hyperfunctional dysphonia as well as videostroboscopic signs. The therapeutic methods were prohibition of harrumphing, speech therapy, antazida therapy, surgical resection or a combination of therapy modalities. The group of FA and SA were divided into groups of complete remission group and incomplete remission group, symptoms and stroboscopic signs were statistically compared.
Results Harrumphing was an important cofactor in developing a CG. Although we couldn’t verify a superior therapy modality a complete remission was archieved in 2/3rd of the reviewed cases. Even if there was an incomplete remission of the contact granuloma we were able to show a reduction of symptoms. Surgical resections of CG showed a significantly higher recurrence rate.
Discussion Even if we couldn’t confirm a superior therapy modality we recommend a symptomatic therapy of CG with overall good remission rates. Primary surgical interventions are not advised owing to high recurrence rates.
-
Literatur
- 1 Ylitalo R, Lindestad PA. Laryngeal findings in patients with contact granuloma: a long-term follow-up study. Acta Otolaryngol 2000; 120 (05) 655-659
- 2 Storck C, Brockmann M, Zimmermann E. et al. Laryngeal granuloma. Aetiology, clinical signs, diagnostic procedures, and treatment. HNO 2009; 57 (10) 1075-1080
- 3 Leonard R, Kendall K. Effects of voice therapy on vocal process granuloma: a phonoscopic approach. Am J Otolaryngol 2005; 26 (02) 101-107
- 4 Havas TE, Priestley J, Lowinger DS. A management strategy for vocal process granulomas. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (2 Pt 1): 301-306
- 5 Farwell DG, Belafsky PC, Rees CJ. An endoscopic grading system for vocal process granuloma. J Laryngol Otol 2008; 122 (10) 1092-1095
- 6 Damrose EJ, Damrose JF. Botulinum toxin as adjunctive therapy in refractory laryngeal granuloma. J Laryngol Otol 2008; 122 (08) 824-828
- 7 Lee SW, Hong HJ, Choi SH. et al. Comparison of treatment modalities for contact granuloma: a nationwide multicenter study. Laryngoscope 2013; 124 (05) 1187-1191
- 8 Karkos PD, George M, Van Der Veen J. et al. Vocal process granulomas: a systematic review of treatment. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2014; 123 (05) 314-320
- 9 Hoffman HT, Overholt E, Karnell M. et al. Vocal process granuloma. Head Neck 2001; 23 (12) 1061-1074
- 10 Emami AJ, Morrison M, Rammage L. et al. Treatment of laryngeal contact ulcers and granulomas: a 12-year retrospective analysis. J Voice 1999; 13 (04) 612-617
- 11 Wang CP, Ko JY, Wang YH. et al. Vocal process granuloma – A result of long-term observation in 53 patients. Oral Oncol 2009; 45 (09) 821-825
- 12 Sun GB, Sun N, Tang HH. et al. Zinc sulfate therapy of vocal process granuloma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269 (09) 2087-2090
- 13 Hillel AT, Lin LM, Samlan R. et al. Inhaled triamcinolone with proton pump inhibitor for treatment of vocal process granulomas: a series of 67 granulomas. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2010; 119 (05) 325-330
- 14 Altmann KW. Vocal fold masses. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2007; 40 (05) 1091-1108
- 15 Carroll TL, Gartner-Schmidt J, Statham MM. et al. Vocal process granuloma and glottal insufficiency: an overlooked etiology?. Laryngoscope 2010; 120 (01) 114-120
- 16 Wang CP, Ko JY, Wang YH. et al. Vocal process granuloma – A result of long-term observation in 53 patients. Oral Oncol 2009; 45 (09) 821-825
- 17 de Lima Pontes PA, De Biase NG, Gadelha EC. Clinical evolution of laryngeal granulomas: treatment and prognosis. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (2 Pt 1): 289-294
- 18 Ma L, Xiao Y, Ye J. et al. Analysis of therapeutic methods for treating vocal process granulomas. Acta Otolaryngol 2015; 135 (03) 277-282
- 19 Leitlinie gastroösophagealen Refluxkrankheit Herbert Koop und Joachim, Labenz und Bittinger M et al. S2k-Leitlinie Gastroösophageale Refluxkrankheit. Bayerisches Ärzteblatt. 10/2015
- 20 Reiter R, Heyduck A, Seufferlein T. et al. Laryngopharyngeal Reflux. Laryngorhinootology 2018; 97 (04) 238-245
- 21 Wani MK, Woodson GE. Laryngeal contact granuloma. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (10) 1589-1593
- 22 Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS). Laryngoscope 2001; 111 (08) 1313-1317
- 23 Belafsky PC, Rees CJ. Laryngopharyngeal reflux: the value of otolaryngology examination. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2008; 10 (03) 278-282
- 24 Vavricka SR, Storck CA, Wildi SM. et al. Limited diagnostic value of laryngopharyngeal lesions in patients with gastroesophageal reflux during routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102 (04) 716-722
- 25 Yılmaz T, Kayahan B, Günaydın RÖ. et al. Botulinum Toxin A for Treatment of Contact Granuloma. J Voice 2016; 30 (06) 741-743
- 26 Pickhard A, Smith E, Rottscholl R. et al. Disorders of the larynx and chronic inflammatory diseases. Laryngorhinootologie 2012; 91 (12) 758-766
- 27 Shoffel-Havakuk H, Halperin D, Yosef L. et al. Lesions of the posterior glottis: clinical and pathologic considerations and treatment outcome. J Voice 2014; 28 (02) 263.e1-263