Publication Date

11-6-2024

Journal

Laryngoscope

DOI

10.1002/lary.31867

PMID

39503469

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Type 1 Thyroplasty is a well-established procedure used for medializing an immobile vocal fold. Silastic and Gore-Tex are the two most common materials used to accomplish this, but comparative data on their relative efficacy are scarce. We sought to compare outcomes between Silastic and Gore-Tex implants via systematic review and meta-analysis for unilateral vocal fold immobility.

METHODS: We collected available data from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science on demographics, maximum phonation time (MPT), voice handicap index (VHI-10/30) score, and any other relevant metrics encountered before comparatively evaluating differences in outcomes.

RESULTS: The search yielded 1,534 records with 55 manuscripts ultimately included. There were 41 unique studies that utilized Silastic for a total of 1038 patients. There were 13 unique studies that utilized Gore-Tex for a total of 245 patients. The pooled mean increase in MPT for Silastic patients was 7.8 s (+1.3 SMD) compared with 5.7 s for Gore-Tex (+1.6 SMD). There was significant publication bias present in both analyses. The pooled mean change in VHI-30 with Silastic was -45.4 (62.2%, -2.09 SMD) compared with -51.6 (73.5%, -1.1 SMD) with Gore-Tex. The pooled mean change in VHI-10 with Silastic was -15.6 (54%, -0.46 SMD) compared with -11.6 (43%, -0.86 SMD) with Gore-Tex. There was no significant publication bias present in VHI outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS: Silicone and Gore-Tex implants provide adequate and comparable results in TT1. The data supporting this conclusion are limited by follow-up, diversity in outcomes, limited data availability, and publication bias. Future research should be dedicated to comparing implants in a well-randomized environment. Laryngoscope, 2024.

Keywords

Gore‐Tex, Silastic, Thyroplasty, glottic insufficiency, medialization laryngoplasty, meta‐analysis, systematic review, vocal fold medialization

Published Open-Access

no

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.