Surgical outcomes of external double needle puncture epiglottopexy in severe laryngomalacia patients with high-risk comorbidities.

Objectives: Patients with severe laryngomalacia (LM) and high-risk comorbidities require surgical interventions such as supraglottoplasty. However, evidence supporting epiglottopexy for these patients is scarce. This study aims to report the surgical outcomes of external double needle puncture using a single thread for epiglottopexy in severe LM patients with high-risk comorbidities.
Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at a single tertiary hospital. We enrolled 32 patients under 12 months with severe LM who underwent external double needle puncture epiglottopexy. We compared clinical factors between the successful and failed groups and identified risk factors for the failure of epiglottopexy.
Results: Of the airway surgical outcomes, 22 (68.7 %) patients were in the successful group. In the failed group (n = 10, 32.3 %), patients received tracheostomies due to uncontrolled saliva (n = 3), the need for mechanical ventilation (n = 3), and uncontrolled LM (n = 4). There was a statistically significant difference in body weight at the time of surgery and the proportion of associated comorbidities between the two groups. Gestational age was the only factor significantly associated with successful surgical outcomes in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses (odds ratio = 2.263; 95 % confidence interval, 1.042-4.918; P = 0.039).
Conclusion: External double needle puncture epiglottopexy is an effective surgical method for patients with LM who present with a retroflexed floppy epiglottis and high-risk comorbidities. Low gestational age is a major risk factor for surgical failure. Consideration of factors such as the need for mechanical ventilation and uncontrolled saliva should be prioritized before and after surgery to enhance surgical success.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)