Supracricoid partial laryngectomy for radiorecurrent laryngeal cancer: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Purpose: The objective of the current systematic review with meta-analysis was to report the pooled survival outcomes of supracricoid partial laryngectomy in the setting of radiorecurrent laryngeal cancer to investigate if and when an organ-sparing surgical treatment is adequate. Methods: The search included all original papers from 1990 to December 2017. The search terms included the following: cricohyoepiglottopexy; cricohyoidopexy; cricohyopexy; horizontal laryngectomy; and partial, subtotal, supracricoid, and supraglottic laryngectomy. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) data clearly distinguish results of partial laryngeal procedures; (2) clear description of tumor stage and selection criteria; (3) clear description or derivability of local control and survival rates. Results: Eleven out of 270 papers were analyzed, and a total of 251 cases were included. Two-year LC, 3-year DFS, and 5-year OS were 92, 80, and 79%, respectively. Heterogenicity evaluated with the I2 parameter was 14, 0, 0%, respectively. The larynx preservation rate was 85.2%, the decannulation rate was 92.1%, and swallowing recovery was 96.5% (PEG dependence and the aspiration pneumonia rate were 3.5 and 6.4%, respectively). Conclusions: SCPL is oncologically sound, guaranteeing a high percentage of success. The homogeneity of data should encourage the use of SCPL as salvage treatment for recurrent LSCC.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1671-1680
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - Jul 1 2018


  • Laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma
  • Open partial laryngectomy
  • Radiorecurrent laryngeal cancer
  • Supracricoid laryngectomy
  • Systematic review


Dive into the research topics of 'Supracricoid partial laryngectomy for radiorecurrent laryngeal cancer: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this