Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes of Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Paralysis After Esophagectomy for Thoracic Esophageal Carcinoma
- 444 Downloads
The objectives of this study were to assess the incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (RLNP) using laryngoscopy after esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal carcinoma and to clarify the risk factors influencing postoperative RLNP.
A total of 299 patients who underwent laryngoscopic examination after esophagectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who were found to have postoperative RLNP were followed up every 1–3 months, with a median follow-up period of 3 months. Recovery from paralysis was also evaluated on the basis of each affected nerve. Multivariate analyses using logistic regression were used to identify independent risk factors for RLNP. Cumulative recovery rate was calculated using Kaplan–Meier method.
A total of 178 (59.5 %) patients were diagnosed with RLNP by first laryngoscopy [bilateral in 59 (33.1 %) patients, right in 15 (8.4 %), and left in 104 (58.4 %)]. In 206 patients who underwent transthoracic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy, independent risk factors for RLNP were lymph node dissection along the right RLN (odds ratio [OR] 3.01, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06–8.54, P = 0.04) and cervical anastomosis (OR 5.94, 95 % CI 1.78–19.80, P < 0.01). Cumulative recovery rate from RLNP was 61.7 % at 12 months after esophagectomy with 91 nerves eventually recovering from paralysis. Median recovery time was 6 months.
RLNP developed in 60 % of patients after esophagectomy and may be associated with lymphadenectomy around the right RLN and cervical esophageal mobilization. Although 62 % of affected nerves recovered within 12 months, great attention should be given when performing these procedures.
KeywordsLymph Node Dissection Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Paralysis Cervical Anastomosis Bilateral Vocal Cord Paralysis
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There are no conflicts of interest that should be disclosed.
- 4.Suda K, Ishida Y, Kawamura Y et al (2012) Robot-assisted thoracoscopic lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the prone position: technical report and short-term outcomes. World J Surg 36:1608–1616. doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1538-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Fujita H, Kakegawa T, Yamana H et al (1995) Mortality and morbidity rates, postoperative course, quality of life, and prognosis after extended radical lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Comparison of three-field lymphadenectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg 222:654–662PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Walther B, Johansson J, Johnsson F et al (2003) Cervical or thoracic anastomosis after esophageal resection and gastric tube reconstruction: a prospective randomized trial comparing sutured neck anastomosis with stapled intrathoracic anastomosis. Ann Surg 238:803–814PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C (2009) UICC International Union Against Cancer, TNM classification of malignant tumors, 7th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 22.Japan Esophageal Society (2008) Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer, 10th edn. Kanehara, TokyoGoogle Scholar