Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 275, Issue 4, pp 973–985 | Cite as

Relationship between swallowing-related quality of life and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in patients who underwent open partial horizontal laryngectomy

  • Nicole PizzorniEmail author
  • Antonio Schindler
  • Marco Fantini
  • Andy Bertolin
  • Giuseppe Rizzotto
  • Federico Ambrogi
  • Giovanni Succo
  • Erika Crosetti
Head and Neck

Abstract

Background

Several studies have previously analyzed the relationship between QOL and signs of dysphagia in patients treated for head and neck cancer and have reported heterogeneous findings. To the best of our knowledge, no study has previously investigated this relationship among patients who underwent open partial horizontal laryngectomy (OPHL). The aim of the study is to determine if patient-reported swallowing-related QOL can discriminate between safe and unsafe swallowing in OPHL patients.

Methods

92 type I, type II, and type III OPHL patients at least 6 months postoperatively were recruited. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) was conducted using liquids, semisolids, and solids. FEES recordings were assessed through the penetration–aspiration scale, the pooling score and the dysphagia outcome and severity scale. All patients completed the MD Anderson dysphagia inventory (MDADI). Kruskal–Wallis test and post-hoc Mann Whitney U test were performed to compare MDADI scores among different level of airway invasion, post-swallow pharyngeal residue’s degree and overall dysphagia severity. ROC curves were generated to determine diagnostic accuracy of the MDADI.

Results

Statistically significant differences in MDADI scores were found between level of airway invasion with semisolids and solids, degree of pharyngeal residue with solids, and severity of dysphagia. MDADI showed significant diagnostic accuracy only in the detection of moderate/severe pharyngeal residue and severe dysphagia; however, sensitivity and specificity were low.

Conclusions

Investigating patients’ perception of swallowing impairment and swallowing-related QOL is not sufficient to discriminate safe and unsafe swallowing in OPHL patients.

Keywords

Open partial laryngectomy Swallowing Quality of life FEES MDADI 

Notes

Author contributions

Nicole Pizzorni, Speech and Language Pathologist, functional analysis, conception and design, drafting the article, final approval of the version to be published; Antonio Schindler, phoniatrician who carried out the functional analysis, conception and design, drafting the article, final approval of the version to be published; Marco Fantini, data collection, conception and design, final approval of the version to be published; Andy Bertolin, surgeon who carried out the functional endoscopic study of swallowing, conception and design, final approval of the version to be published; Giuseppe Rizzotto, surgeon who performed surgical procedures, conception and design, final approval of the version to be published; Federico Ambrogi, statistical analysis, final approval of the version to be published; Giovanni Succo, surgeon who performed surgical procedures, conception and design, drafting the article, final approval of the version to be published; Erika Crosetti, surgeon who carried out the functional endoscopic study of swallowing, conception and design, final approval of the version to be published.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Luigi Sacco Hospital research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Batıoğlu-Karaaltın A, Binbay Z, Yiğit Ö, Dönmez Z (2017) Evaluation of life quality, self-confidence and sexual functions in patients with total and partial laryngectomy. Auris Nasus Larynx 44:188–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2016.03.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Succo G, Peretti G, Piazza C, Remacle M, Eckel HE, Chevalier D, Simo R, Hantzakos AG, Rizzotto G, Lucioni M, Crosetti E, Antonelli AR (2014) Open partial horizontal laryngectomies: a proposal for classification by the working committee on nomenclature of the European Laryngological society. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271:2489–2496.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3024-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lips M, Speyer R, Zumach A, Kross KW, Kremer B (2015) Supracricoid laryngectomy and dysphagia: a systematic literature review. Laryngoscope 125:2143–2156.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25341 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schindler A, Pizzorni N, Mozzanica F, Fantini M, Ginocchio D, Bertolin A, Crosetti E, Succo G (2016) Functional outcomes after supracricoid laryngectomy: what do we not know and what do we need to know? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:3459–3475.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3822-3 (Epub 2015 Nov 6)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Woisard V, Serrano E, Yardeni E, Puech M, Pessey JJ (1993) Deglutition after supra—glottic laryngectomy. J Otolaryngol 22:278–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naudo P, Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, Jouffre V, Laccourreye H, Brasnu D (1998) Complications and functional outcome after supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118:124–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benito J, Holsinger FC, Pérez‑Martín A, Garcia D, Weinstein GS, Laccoureye O (2011) Aspiration after supracricoid partial laryngectomy: incidence, risk factors, management, and outcomes. Head Neck 33:679–685.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.21521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinar E, Imre A, Calli C, Oncel S, Katilmis H (2012) Supracricoid partial laryngectomy: analyses of oncologic and functional outcomes. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147:1093–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812457334 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rizzotto G, Crosetti E, Lucioni M, Succo G (2012) Subtotal laryngectomy: outcomes of 469 patients and proposal of a comprehensive and simplified classification of surgical procedures. Eur Arch Othorinolaryngol 269:1635–1646.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-1928-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Webster KT, Samlan RA, Jones B, Bunton K, Tufano RP (2010) Supracricoid partial laryngectomy: swallowing, voice, and speech outcomes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119:10–16.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000348941011900102 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bron L, Pasche P, Brossard E, Monnier P, Schweizer V (2002) Functional analysis after supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy. Laryngoscope 122:1289–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200207000-00027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goeleven A, Dejaeger E, Vander Poorten V, Delaere P (2005) Swallowing and functional outcome after partial laryngectomy: a literature review. B-ENT 1:165–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schindler A, Favero E, Nudo S, Albera R, Schindler O, Cavalot AL (2006) Long‑term voice and swallowing modifications after supracricoid laryngectomy: objective, subjective and self‑assessment data. Am J Otolaryngol 27:378–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2006.01.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schindler A, Fantini M, Pizzorni N, Crosetti E, Mozzanica F, Bertolin A, Ottaviani F, Rizzotto G, Succo G (2015) Swallowing, voice and quality of life after supratracheal laryngectomy: preliminary long‑term results. Head Neck 37:557–566.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23636 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Topaloglu I, Köprücü G, Bal M (2012) Analysis of swallowing function after supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidopexy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 146:412–418.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599811428582 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang SY, Lu ZM, Chen LS, Luo XN, Ge PJ, Song XH, Chen SH, Wu YL (2013) Supracricoid partial laryngectomy cricohyoidoepiglottopexy (SCPL-CHEP) versus vertical partial laryngectomy for the treatment of glottic carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:1027–1034.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2241-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zacharek MA, Pasha R, Meleca RJ, Dworkin JP, Stachler RJ, Jacobs JR, Marks SC, Garfield I (2001) Functional outcomes after supracricoid laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 111:1558–1564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saito K, Araki K, Ogawa K, Shiotani A (2009) Laryngeal function after supracricoid laryngectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 140:487–492.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2008.12.036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simonelli M, Ruoppolo G, de Vincentiis M, Di Mario M, Calcagno P, Vitiello C, Manciocco V, Pagliuca G, Gallo A (2010) Swallowing ability and chronic aspiration after supracricoid partial laryngectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142:873–878.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.01.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crosetti E, Garofalo P, Bosio C, Consolino P, Petrelli A, Rizzotto G, Succo G (2014) How the operated larynx ages. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 34:19–28PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Serra A, Maiolino L, Di Mauro P, Licciardello L, Cocuzza S (2016) The senile functional evolution of the larynx after supracricoid reconstructive surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:4359–4368.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-4177-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campbell BH, Spinelli K, Marbella AM, Myers KB, Kuhn JC, Layde PM (2004) Aspiration, weight loss, and quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:1100–1103.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.130.9.1100 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gillespie MB, Brodsky MB, Day TA, Sharma AK, Lee FS, Martin-Harris B (2005) Laryngeal penetration and aspiration during swallowing after the treatment of advanced oropharyngeal cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:615–619.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.131.7.615 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kendall KA, Kosek SR, Tanner K (2014) Quality-of-life scores compared to objective measures of swallowing after oropharyngeal chemoradiation. Laryngoscope 124:682–687.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24344 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hutcheson KA, Barrow MP, Lisec A, Barringer DA, Gries K, Lewin JS (2016) What is a clinically relevant difference in MDADI scores between groups of head and neck cancer patients? Laryngoscope 126:1108–1113.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25778 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pedersen A, Wilson J, McColl E, Carding P, Patterson J (2016) Swallowing outcome measures in head and neck cancer—how do they compare? Oral Oncol 52:104–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.10.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Florie M, Baijens L, Kremer B, Kross K, Lacko M, Verhees F, Winkens B (2016) Relationship between swallow-specific quality of life and fiber-optic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing findings in patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 38:E1848-E1856.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.24333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hassan SJ, Weymuller EA (1993) Assessment of quality of life in head and neck cancer patients. Head Neck 15:485–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    List MA, Ritter-Sterr C, Lansky SB (1990) A performance scale for head and neck cancer patients. Cancer 66:564–569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    List MA, D’Antonio LL, Cella DF, Siston A, Mumby P, Haraf D, Vokes E (1996) The performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients and the functional assessment of cancer therapy–head and neck scale: a study of utility and validity. Cancer 77:2294–2301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen AY, Frankowski R, Bishop-Leone J, Hebert T, Leyk S, Lewin J, Goepfert H (2001) The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127:870–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenbek JC, Robbins JA, Roecker EB, Cotle JL, Wood JL (1996) A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia 11:93–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bastian RW (1991) Videoendoscopic evaluation of patients with dysphagia: an adjunct to the modified barium swallow. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 104:339–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Colodny N (2002) Interjudge and intrajudge reliabilities in fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (fees) using the penetration-aspiration scale: a replication study. Dysphagia 17:308–315.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-002-0073-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Farneti D (2008) Pooling score: an endoscopic model for evaluating severity of dysphagia. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 28:135–140PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Farneti D, Fattori A, Nacci A, Mancini V, Simonelli M, Ruoppolo G, Genovese E (2014) The pooling-score (P-score): inter- and intra-rater reliability in endoscopic assessment of the severity of dysphagia. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 34:105–110PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Neil KH, Purdy M, Falk J, Gallo L (1999) The dysphagia outcome and severity scale. Dysphagia 14:139–145.  https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00009595 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schindler A, Borghi E, Tiddia C, Ginocchio D, Felisati G, Ottaviani F (2008) Adaptation and validation of the Italian MD Anderson dysphagia inventory (MDADI). Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 129:97–100Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cohen BH (2008) Explaining psychological statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chen AY, Frankowski R, Bishop-Leone J, Hebert T, Leyk S, Lewin J, Goepfert H (2001) The development and validation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer: the M. D. Anderson dysphagia inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127:870–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Castro A, Sanchez-Cuadrado I, Bernaldez R, Del Palacio A, Gavilan J (2012) Laryngeal function preservation following supracricoid partial laryngectomy. Head Neck 34:162–167.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.21703 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Alicandri-Ciufelli M, Piccinini A, Grammatica A, Chiesi A, Bergamini G, Luppi MP, Nizzoli F, Ghidini A, Tassi S, Presutti L (2013) Voice and swallowing after partial laryngectomy: factors influencing outcome. Head Neck 35:214–219.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.22946 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lewin JS, Hutcheson KA, Barringer DA, May AH, Roberts DB, Holsinger FC, Diaz EM (2008) Functional analysis of swallowing outcomes after supracricoid partial laryngectomy. Head Neck 30:559–566.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.20738 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Kramer AE, Rosenbek JC, Robbins J, Chignell KA, Logemann JA, Clarke C (2000) The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: I. Conceptual foundation and item development. Dysphagia 15:115–121.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004550010012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Robbins J, Kramer AE, Rosenbek JC, Chignell KA (2000) The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: II. Item reduction and preliminary scaling. Dysphagia 15:122–133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004550010013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    McHorney CA, Robbins J, Lomax K, Rosenbek JC, Chignell K, Kramer AE, Bricker DE (2002) The SWAL-QOL and SWAL-CARE outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: III. Documentation of reliability and validity. Dysphagia 17:97–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bjordal K, Ahlner-Elmqvist M, Tollesson E, Jensen AB, Razavi D, Maher EJ, Kaasa S (1994) Development of a European Organisation for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) questionnaire module to be used in quality of life assessments in head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol 33:879–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences “L. Sacco”University of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.Head Neck Department - Oncology DepartmentFPO IRCCS Candiolo Cancer InstituteTurinItaly
  3. 3.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyOspedale Civile of Vittorio VenetoBellunoItaly
  4. 4.Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Medical Statistics, Biometry and BioinformaticsUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  5. 5.UOS Foniatria, Azienda Ospedaliera-Polo Universitario “L. Sacco”MilanItaly

Personalised recommendations