Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness of disinfection protocols utilizing a ultraviolet (UV) Smart D60 light system with Impelux™ technology with a standard Cidex ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) disinfection protocol for cleaning flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopes (FFLs). METHODS:Two hundred FFLs were tested for bacterial contamination after routine use, and another 200 FFLs were tested after disinfection with one of four methods: enzymatic detergent plus Cidex OPA (standard), enzymatic detergent plus UV Smart D60, microfiber cloth plus UV Smart D60, and nonsterile wipe plus UV Smart D60. Pre- and post-disinfection microbial burden levels and positive culture rates were compared using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Fisher's two-sided exact, respectively. RESULTS:After routine use, approximately 56% (112/200) of FFLs were contaminated, with an average contamination level of 9,973.7 ± 70,136.3 CFU/mL. The standard reprocessing method showed no positive cultures. The enzymatic plus UV, microfiber plus UV, and nonsterile wipe plus UV methods yielded contamination rates of 4% (2/50), 6% (3/50), and 12% (6/50), respectively, with no significant differences among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). The pre-disinfection microbial burden levels decreased significantly after each disinfection technique (p < 0.001). The average microbial burden recovered after enzymatic plus UV, microfiber plus UV, and nonsterile wipe plus UV were 0.40 CFU/mL ± 2, 0.60 CFU/mL ± 2.4, and 12.2 CFU/mL ± 69.5, respectively, with no significant difference among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). Micrococcus species (53.8%) were most frequently isolated, and no high-concern organisms were recovered. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Disinfection protocols utilizing UV Smart D60 were as effective as the standard chemical disinfection protocol using Cidex OPA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:NA Laryngoscope, 133:3512-3519, 2023.

OBJECTIVE:To compare outcomes between two standard-of-care anesthesia regimens for operative laryngoscopy: general anesthesia with a neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) versus remifentanil and propofol (non-NMBA). METHODS:This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial at a tertiary care center. Patients were randomized to either anesthesia using rocuronium (NMBA) or with remifentanil/propofol infusion alone (non-NMBA). Intraoperative impressions, anesthesia data, and post-operative patient surveys were collected. RESULTS:Sixty-one patients who underwent suspension laryngoscopy from 2020 to 2022 were included (25 female, 36 male, ranging 20-81 years). Thirty patients were enrolled in the NMBA arm and 31 patients in the non-NMBA arm. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were higher in the NMBA (p < 0.01). Patients in the non-NMBA group were more likely to require vasopressors (p = 0.04, RR = 3.08 [0.86-11.05]). Surgeons were more frequently satisfied with conditions in the NMBA group (86.7%) compared to the non-NMBA group (58.1%, p < 0.01). Procedures were more likely to be paused due to movement in the non-NMBA group (45.1%) compared to the NMBA group (16.6%, p < 0.03, RR = 2.26 [1.02-4.99]). Patients in the non-NMBA group were more likely to endorse myalgia the week after surgery (44%) compared to the NMBA group (8.3%, p < 0.01) and reported higher average pain levels on a 0-10 pain scale (3.7) compared to the paralysis group (2.0). CONCLUSIONS:Anesthesia with rocuronium was associated with better intraoperative conditions and postoperative pain compared to anesthesia with remifentanil/propofol. Remifentanil/propofol were associated with lower blood pressure and suppression of laryngoscopy-associated tachycardia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level 2 Laryngoscope, 2023.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:For transwomen undergoing voice feminization interventions, fundamental frequency (F 0 ; vocal pitch) is a commonly reported functional outcome measure in the literature. However, F 0 may not correlate well with improvement in quality of life (QoL). Several validated voice-related QoL instruments have been used to assess QoL improvement in these patients, yet there is no consensus on the most appropriate instrument. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the relationship between change in F 0 and QoL improvement following voice feminization, and to compare validated QoL instruments commonly used in this population. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. REVIEW METHODS/METHODS:A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Primary studies of transwomen undergoing voice feminization, reporting validated QoL outcomes were included. Meta-analyses for associations between mean change in QoL score and mean change in F 0 , as well as variations in mean change in QoL score by QoL instrument, were performed using a multilevel mixed effects model. RESULTS:No statistically significant correlation was found between change in F 0 and QoL score improvement post-intervention. Different validated instruments showed statistically significant variation in QoL score change, with the Trans Women Voice Questionnaire (TWVQ) capturing a greater improvement in QoL score relative to other instruments. CONCLUSIONS:Lack of correlation between changes in F 0 and QoL improvement further supports that F 0 alone is insufficient to assess the efficacy of voice feminizing interventions. Validated QoL measures are useful adjuncts. Of these, the TWVQ appears to be the most sensitive for measurement of QoL improvement following voice feminization.

OBJECTIVE:To compare improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROM) in persons undergoing endoscopic and open surgical management of Zenker diverticula (ZD). METHODOLOGY/METHODS:Prospective, multicenter cohort study of all individuals enrolled in the Prospective OUtcomes of Cricopharyngeus Hypertonicity (POUCH) Collaborative who underwent surgery for ZD. Patient survey, radiography reports, and the 10-item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) pre- and post-procedure were abstracted from a REDCap database, which summarized means, medians, percentages, and frequencies of. Outcome based on operative intervention (endoscopic vs. open) was compared using t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test or chi-square test, as appropriate. RESULTS:One hundred and forty-seven persons were prospectively followed. The mean age (SD) of the cohort was 68.7 (11.0). Overall, 66% of patients reported 100% improvement in EAT-10; 81% of patients had greater than 75% improvement; and 88% had greater than 50% improvement. Endoscopic was used for n = 109 patients, and open surgical intervention was used for n = 38. The median [interquartile range, IQR] EAT-10 percent improvement for endoscopic treatment was 93.3% [72, 100], and open was 100% [92.3, 100] (p = 0.05). The incidence of intraoperative complications was 3.7% for endoscopic and 7.9% for open surgical management. The median [IQR] in follow-up was 86 and 97.5 days, respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Both endoscopic and open surgical management of ZD provide significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes. The data suggest that open diverticulectomy may provide a modest advantage in symptomatic improvement compared to endoscopic management. The data suggest that the postoperative complication rate is higher in the open surgical group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level 3 Laryngoscope, 2023.

OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, outpatient visits were adapted for the virtual setting, forcing laryngologists to presume certain diagnoses without the aid of laryngoscopy, solely based on history and the limited physical exam available via video visit. This study aims to examine the accuracy of presumptive diagnoses made via telemedicine, compared to subsequent in-person follow up, where endoscopic examination could confirm or refute suspected diagnoses. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective chart review was conducted of 38 patients evaluated for voice-related issues at NYU Langone Health and the University of California-San Francisco. Presumptive diagnoses at the initial telemedicine encounter were noted, along with diagnostic cues used for clinical reasoning and recommended treatment plans. These presumptive diagnoses were compared to diagnoses and plans established following laryngoscopy at follow-up in-person visits. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:After laryngoscopy at the first in-person visit, 38% of presumptive diagnoses changed, as did 37% of treatment plans. The accuracy varied among conditions. Muscle tension dysphonia and Reinke's edema were accurately diagnosed without laryngoscopy, but other conditions, including vocal fold paralysis and subglottic stenosis, were not initially suspected, relying on laryngoscopy for diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:While some laryngologic conditions may be reasonably identified without in-person examination, laryngoscopy remains central to definitive diagnosis and treatment. Telemedicine can increase access to care, but it may provide more utility as a screening tool, triaging which patients should present more urgently for in-person laryngoscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/UNASSIGNED:4.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of disinfection protocols utilizing a ultraviolet (UV) Smart D60 light system with Impeluxâ„¢ technology with a standard Cidex ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) disinfection protocol for cleaning flexible fiberoptic laryngoscopes (FFLs). Methods: Two hundred FFLs were tested for bacterial contamination after routine use, and another 200 FFLs were tested after disinfection with one of four methods: enzymatic detergent plus Cidex OPA (standard), enzymatic detergent plus UV Smart D60, microfiber cloth plus UV Smart D60, and nonsterile wipe plus UV Smart D60. Pre- and post-disinfection microbial burden levels and positive culture rates were compared using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Fisher's two-sided exact, respectively. Results: After routine use, approximately 56% (112/200) of FFLs were contaminated, with an average contamination level of 9,973.7 ± 70,136.3 CFU/mL. The standard reprocessing method showed no positive cultures. The enzymatic plus UV, microfiber plus UV, and nonsterile wipe plus UV methods yielded contamination rates of 4% (2/50), 6% (3/50), and 12% (6/50), respectively, with no significant differences among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). The pre-disinfection microbial burden levels decreased significantly after each disinfection technique (p < 0.001). The average microbial burden recovered after enzymatic plus UV, microfiber plus UV, and nonsterile wipe plus UV were 0.40 CFU/mL ± 2, 0.60 CFU/mL ± 2.4, and 12.2 CFU/mL ± 69.5, respectively, with no significant difference among the treatment groups (p > 0.05). Micrococcus species (53.8%) were most frequently isolated, and no high-concern organisms were recovered. Conclusion: Disinfection protocols utilizing UV Smart D60 were as effective as the standard chemical disinfection protocol using Cidex OPA. Level of Evidence: N/A Laryngoscope, 2023.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of percutaneous dilational tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation and the risk for healthcare providers. DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective cohort study; patients were enrolled between March 11, and April 29, 2020. The date of final follow-up was July 30, 2020. We used a propensity score matching approach to compare outcomes. Study outcomes were formulated before data collection and analysis. SETTING/METHODS:Critical care units at two large metropolitan hospitals in New York City. PATIENTS/METHODS:Five-hundred forty-one patients with confirmed severe coronavirus disease 2019 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Bedside percutaneous dilational tracheostomy with modified visualization and ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:Required time for discontinuation off mechanical ventilation, total length of hospitalization, and overall patient survival. Of the 541 patients, 394 patients were eligible for a tracheostomy. One-hundred sixteen were early percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with median time of 9 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 7-12 d), whereas 89 were late percutaneous dilational tracheostomies with a median time of 19 days after initiation of mechanical ventilation (interquartile range, 16-24 d). Compared with patients with no tracheostomy, patients with an early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had a higher probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference, 30%; p < 0.001; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.34-5.84; p = 0.006) and a lower mortality (absolute difference, 34%, p < 0.001; hazard ratio for death, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.06-0.22; p < 0.001). Compared with patients with late percutaneous dilational tracheostomy, patients with early percutaneous dilational tracheostomy had higher discontinuation rates from mechanical ventilation (absolute difference 7%; p < 0.35; hazard ratio for successful discontinuation, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.3; p = 0.04) and had a shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation in survivors (absolute difference, -15 d; p < 0.001). None of the healthcare providers who performed all the percutaneous dilational tracheostomies procedures had clinical symptoms or any positive laboratory test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. CONCLUSIONS:In coronavirus disease 2019 patients on mechanical ventilation, an early modified percutaneous dilational tracheostomy was safe for patients and healthcare providers and associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Decision-making in the timing of tracheostomy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has centered on the intersection of long-standing debates on the benefits of early vs late tracheostomy, assumptions about timelines of infectivity of the novel coronavirus, and concern over risk to surgeons performing tracheostomy. Multiple consensus guidelines recommend avoiding or delaying tracheostomy, without evidence to indicate anticipated improvement in outcomes as a result. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To assess outcomes from early tracheostomy in the airway management of patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective medical record review was completed of 148 patients with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation at a single tertiary-care medical center in New York City from March 1 to May 7, 2020. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Open or percutaneous tracheostomy. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcomes were time from symptom onset to (1) endotracheal intubation, (2) tracheostomy; time from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy; time from tracheostomy to (1) tracheostomy tube downsizing, (2) decannulation; total time on mechanical ventilation; and total length of stay. Results/UNASSIGNED:Participants included 148 patients, 120 men and 28 women, with an overall mean (SD) age of 58.1 (15.8) years. Mean (SD; median) time from symptom onset to intubation was 10.57 (6.58; 9) days; from symptom onset to tracheostomy, 22.76 (8.84; 21) days; and from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy, 12.23 (6.82; 12) days. The mean (SD; median) time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation was 33.49 (18.82; 27) days; from tracheostomy to first downsize, 23.02 (13.76; 19) days; and from tracheostomy to decannulation, 30.16 (16.00; 26) days. The mean (SD; median) length of stay for all patients was 51.29 (23.66; 45) days. Timing of tracheostomy was significantly associated with length of stay: median length of stay was 40 days in those who underwent early tracheostomy (within 10 days of endotracheal intubation) and 49 days in those who underwent late tracheostomy (median difference, -8; 95% CI, -15 to -1). In a competing risks model with death as the competing risk, the late tracheostomy group was 16% less likely to discontinue mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.28). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study from the first 2 months of the pandemic in New York City provides an opportunity to reconsider guidelines for tracheostomy for patients with COVID-19. Findings demonstrated noninferiority of early tracheostomy and challenges recommendations to categorically delay or avoid tracheostomy in this patient population. When aligned with emerging evidence about the timeline of infectivity of the novel coronavirus, this approach may optimize outcomes from tracheostomy while keeping clinicians safe.