Comparison of conventional, revascularized, and bioengineered methods of recurrent laryngeal nerve reconstruction

Jordan P. Sand, Andrea M. Park, Neel Bhatt, Shaun Desai, Laura Marquardt, Shelly Sakiyama-Elbert, Randal C. Paniello

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Importance: Damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is highly detrimental to voice, swallow, and cough. The optimal method for reconstitution of a nerve gap after injury is unknown. Objective: To evaluate multiple methods of RLN reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used an established canine model of RLN injury to examine purpose-bred, conditioned, female, 20-kg mongrel hounds atWashington University. A total of 32 dogs were examined, with 63 experiments performed. Interventions: Surgical transection or excision of the RLN with reconstruction by multiple methods. Main Outcomes and Measures: Six months after injury repair, laryngeal adductor pressures (LAPs), spontaneous and stimulable movement, and graft axon counts by histologic analysis were assessed. Results: Simple RLN transection with direct neurorrhaphy provided a mean (SD) recovery of 55.5%(12.5%) of baseline LAPs (P = .18 for comparison of LAP recovery among cases from the conventional nerve graft [39.4%(22.2%)]; P = .63 for comparison of LAP recovery among cases from the reverse autograft [60.8%(27.5%)]). Revascularized grafts provided a recovery of 54.5%(46.4%) while short and long acellular grafts provided recoveries of 60.4%(NA) and 39.5%(17.0%). Two of 11 polyglycolic acid reconstructions provided a measurable LAP with a mean (SD) recovery of 37.1%(8.9%) of baseline. Reconstruction with a neural conduit in any condition provided no measurable LAP recovery. Conclusions and Relevance: Conventional nerve grafting resulted in no significant difference in recovery of LAP function compared with simple neurorrhaphy or reverse autograft. Conventional and revascularized nerve grafts provided similar recovery. The use of bioengineered acellular nerve grafts or nerve conduits for reconstruction resulted in poor recovery of function.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)526-532
Number of pages7
JournalJAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume142
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
Pressure
Transplants
Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Injuries
Autografts
Polyglycolic Acid
Recovery of Function
Wounds and Injuries
Deglutition
Cough
Axons
Canidae
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Dogs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparison of conventional, revascularized, and bioengineered methods of recurrent laryngeal nerve reconstruction. / Sand, Jordan P.; Park, Andrea M.; Bhatt, Neel; Desai, Shaun; Marquardt, Laura; Sakiyama-Elbert, Shelly; Paniello, Randal C.

In: JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 142, No. 6, 01.06.2016, p. 526-532.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sand, Jordan P. ; Park, Andrea M. ; Bhatt, Neel ; Desai, Shaun ; Marquardt, Laura ; Sakiyama-Elbert, Shelly ; Paniello, Randal C. / Comparison of conventional, revascularized, and bioengineered methods of recurrent laryngeal nerve reconstruction. In: JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 142, No. 6. pp. 526-532.
@article{47f935aeb2e74c0c853ec401b049edcc,
title = "Comparison of conventional, revascularized, and bioengineered methods of recurrent laryngeal nerve reconstruction",
abstract = "Importance: Damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is highly detrimental to voice, swallow, and cough. The optimal method for reconstitution of a nerve gap after injury is unknown. Objective: To evaluate multiple methods of RLN reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used an established canine model of RLN injury to examine purpose-bred, conditioned, female, 20-kg mongrel hounds atWashington University. A total of 32 dogs were examined, with 63 experiments performed. Interventions: Surgical transection or excision of the RLN with reconstruction by multiple methods. Main Outcomes and Measures: Six months after injury repair, laryngeal adductor pressures (LAPs), spontaneous and stimulable movement, and graft axon counts by histologic analysis were assessed. Results: Simple RLN transection with direct neurorrhaphy provided a mean (SD) recovery of 55.5{\%}(12.5{\%}) of baseline LAPs (P = .18 for comparison of LAP recovery among cases from the conventional nerve graft [39.4{\%}(22.2{\%})]; P = .63 for comparison of LAP recovery among cases from the reverse autograft [60.8{\%}(27.5{\%})]). Revascularized grafts provided a recovery of 54.5{\%}(46.4{\%}) while short and long acellular grafts provided recoveries of 60.4{\%}(NA) and 39.5{\%}(17.0{\%}). Two of 11 polyglycolic acid reconstructions provided a measurable LAP with a mean (SD) recovery of 37.1{\%}(8.9{\%}) of baseline. Reconstruction with a neural conduit in any condition provided no measurable LAP recovery. Conclusions and Relevance: Conventional nerve grafting resulted in no significant difference in recovery of LAP function compared with simple neurorrhaphy or reverse autograft. Conventional and revascularized nerve grafts provided similar recovery. The use of bioengineered acellular nerve grafts or nerve conduits for reconstruction resulted in poor recovery of function.",
author = "Sand, {Jordan P.} and Park, {Andrea M.} and Neel Bhatt and Shaun Desai and Laura Marquardt and Shelly Sakiyama-Elbert and Paniello, {Randal C.}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaoto.2016.0151",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "142",
pages = "526--532",
journal = "Archives of Otolaryngology",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of conventional, revascularized, and bioengineered methods of recurrent laryngeal nerve reconstruction

AU - Sand, Jordan P.

AU - Park, Andrea M.

AU - Bhatt, Neel

AU - Desai, Shaun

AU - Marquardt, Laura

AU - Sakiyama-Elbert, Shelly

AU - Paniello, Randal C.

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - Importance: Damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is highly detrimental to voice, swallow, and cough. The optimal method for reconstitution of a nerve gap after injury is unknown. Objective: To evaluate multiple methods of RLN reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used an established canine model of RLN injury to examine purpose-bred, conditioned, female, 20-kg mongrel hounds atWashington University. A total of 32 dogs were examined, with 63 experiments performed. Interventions: Surgical transection or excision of the RLN with reconstruction by multiple methods. Main Outcomes and Measures: Six months after injury repair, laryngeal adductor pressures (LAPs), spontaneous and stimulable movement, and graft axon counts by histologic analysis were assessed. Results: Simple RLN transection with direct neurorrhaphy provided a mean (SD) recovery of 55.5%(12.5%) of baseline LAPs (P = .18 for comparison of LAP recovery among cases from the conventional nerve graft [39.4%(22.2%)]; P = .63 for comparison of LAP recovery among cases from the reverse autograft [60.8%(27.5%)]). Revascularized grafts provided a recovery of 54.5%(46.4%) while short and long acellular grafts provided recoveries of 60.4%(NA) and 39.5%(17.0%). Two of 11 polyglycolic acid reconstructions provided a measurable LAP with a mean (SD) recovery of 37.1%(8.9%) of baseline. Reconstruction with a neural conduit in any condition provided no measurable LAP recovery. Conclusions and Relevance: Conventional nerve grafting resulted in no significant difference in recovery of LAP function compared with simple neurorrhaphy or reverse autograft. Conventional and revascularized nerve grafts provided similar recovery. The use of bioengineered acellular nerve grafts or nerve conduits for reconstruction resulted in poor recovery of function.

AB - Importance: Damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is highly detrimental to voice, swallow, and cough. The optimal method for reconstitution of a nerve gap after injury is unknown. Objective: To evaluate multiple methods of RLN reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used an established canine model of RLN injury to examine purpose-bred, conditioned, female, 20-kg mongrel hounds atWashington University. A total of 32 dogs were examined, with 63 experiments performed. Interventions: Surgical transection or excision of the RLN with reconstruction by multiple methods. Main Outcomes and Measures: Six months after injury repair, laryngeal adductor pressures (LAPs), spontaneous and stimulable movement, and graft axon counts by histologic analysis were assessed. Results: Simple RLN transection with direct neurorrhaphy provided a mean (SD) recovery of 55.5%(12.5%) of baseline LAPs (P = .18 for comparison of LAP recovery among cases from the conventional nerve graft [39.4%(22.2%)]; P = .63 for comparison of LAP recovery among cases from the reverse autograft [60.8%(27.5%)]). Revascularized grafts provided a recovery of 54.5%(46.4%) while short and long acellular grafts provided recoveries of 60.4%(NA) and 39.5%(17.0%). Two of 11 polyglycolic acid reconstructions provided a measurable LAP with a mean (SD) recovery of 37.1%(8.9%) of baseline. Reconstruction with a neural conduit in any condition provided no measurable LAP recovery. Conclusions and Relevance: Conventional nerve grafting resulted in no significant difference in recovery of LAP function compared with simple neurorrhaphy or reverse autograft. Conventional and revascularized nerve grafts provided similar recovery. The use of bioengineered acellular nerve grafts or nerve conduits for reconstruction resulted in poor recovery of function.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84974807554&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84974807554&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.0151

DO - 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.0151

M3 - Article

C2 - 27149421

AN - SCOPUS:84974807554

VL - 142

SP - 526

EP - 532

JO - Archives of Otolaryngology

JF - Archives of Otolaryngology

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 6

ER -