Patient tolerance of in-office pulsed dye laser treatments to the upper aerodigestive tract

Catherine J. Rees, Stacey L. Halum, Rohan C. Wijewickrama, Jamie A. Koufman, Gregory N Postma

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Recent advances in technology have facilitated a movement toward unsedated in-office treatment of laryngeal, tracheal, and esophageal lesions. The objective of this study was to determine patient tolerance of inoffice pulsed-dye laser (PDL) treatment of upper aerodigestive tract pathoses via the transnasal esophagoscope. Methods: Three hundred twenty-eight unsedated in-office PDL cases were performed at a university-based tertiary referral center in 131 patients. These procedures were performed for various upper aerodigestive pathoses, including recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, chronic granulomas, and recurrent leukoplakia. Eighty-nine subjects completed a phone survey concerning their discomfort level after the PDL procedure. They were also asked specific questions about recovery time, pain medication, and preference of operating room versus inoffice procedures. Results: The average comfort score was 7.4 (10 being minimal discomfort). Eighty-four percent did not use any pain medication; 87% stated that, if possible, they would prefer to undergo unsedated inoffice procedures rather than surgeries under general anesthesia for further treatment of their upper aerodigestive tract pathosis. Conclusions: Unsedated transnasal treatment of upper aerodigestive tract pathoses is readily accepted and well-tolerated by otolaryngology patients. Patients overwhelmingly prefer the inoffice PDL over surgeries under general anesthesia. EBM rating: C-4.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1023-1027
Number of pages5
JournalOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume134
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2006

Fingerprint

Dye Lasers
General Anesthesia
Esophagoscopes
Leukoplakia
Therapeutics
Pain
Otolaryngology
Laser Therapy
Operating Rooms
Granuloma
Tertiary Care Centers
Technology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Patient tolerance of in-office pulsed dye laser treatments to the upper aerodigestive tract. / Rees, Catherine J.; Halum, Stacey L.; Wijewickrama, Rohan C.; Koufman, Jamie A.; Postma, Gregory N.

In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 134, No. 6, 01.06.2006, p. 1023-1027.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rees, Catherine J. ; Halum, Stacey L. ; Wijewickrama, Rohan C. ; Koufman, Jamie A. ; Postma, Gregory N. / Patient tolerance of in-office pulsed dye laser treatments to the upper aerodigestive tract. In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2006 ; Vol. 134, No. 6. pp. 1023-1027.
@article{e0170036d1a141b2a31c38dd02e63e4c,
title = "Patient tolerance of in-office pulsed dye laser treatments to the upper aerodigestive tract",
abstract = "Introduction: Recent advances in technology have facilitated a movement toward unsedated in-office treatment of laryngeal, tracheal, and esophageal lesions. The objective of this study was to determine patient tolerance of inoffice pulsed-dye laser (PDL) treatment of upper aerodigestive tract pathoses via the transnasal esophagoscope. Methods: Three hundred twenty-eight unsedated in-office PDL cases were performed at a university-based tertiary referral center in 131 patients. These procedures were performed for various upper aerodigestive pathoses, including recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, chronic granulomas, and recurrent leukoplakia. Eighty-nine subjects completed a phone survey concerning their discomfort level after the PDL procedure. They were also asked specific questions about recovery time, pain medication, and preference of operating room versus inoffice procedures. Results: The average comfort score was 7.4 (10 being minimal discomfort). Eighty-four percent did not use any pain medication; 87{\%} stated that, if possible, they would prefer to undergo unsedated inoffice procedures rather than surgeries under general anesthesia for further treatment of their upper aerodigestive tract pathosis. Conclusions: Unsedated transnasal treatment of upper aerodigestive tract pathoses is readily accepted and well-tolerated by otolaryngology patients. Patients overwhelmingly prefer the inoffice PDL over surgeries under general anesthesia. EBM rating: C-4.",
author = "Rees, {Catherine J.} and Halum, {Stacey L.} and Wijewickrama, {Rohan C.} and Koufman, {Jamie A.} and Postma, {Gregory N}",
year = "2006",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.otohns.2006.01.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "134",
pages = "1023--1027",
journal = "Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)",
issn = "0194-5998",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient tolerance of in-office pulsed dye laser treatments to the upper aerodigestive tract

AU - Rees, Catherine J.

AU - Halum, Stacey L.

AU - Wijewickrama, Rohan C.

AU - Koufman, Jamie A.

AU - Postma, Gregory N

PY - 2006/6/1

Y1 - 2006/6/1

N2 - Introduction: Recent advances in technology have facilitated a movement toward unsedated in-office treatment of laryngeal, tracheal, and esophageal lesions. The objective of this study was to determine patient tolerance of inoffice pulsed-dye laser (PDL) treatment of upper aerodigestive tract pathoses via the transnasal esophagoscope. Methods: Three hundred twenty-eight unsedated in-office PDL cases were performed at a university-based tertiary referral center in 131 patients. These procedures were performed for various upper aerodigestive pathoses, including recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, chronic granulomas, and recurrent leukoplakia. Eighty-nine subjects completed a phone survey concerning their discomfort level after the PDL procedure. They were also asked specific questions about recovery time, pain medication, and preference of operating room versus inoffice procedures. Results: The average comfort score was 7.4 (10 being minimal discomfort). Eighty-four percent did not use any pain medication; 87% stated that, if possible, they would prefer to undergo unsedated inoffice procedures rather than surgeries under general anesthesia for further treatment of their upper aerodigestive tract pathosis. Conclusions: Unsedated transnasal treatment of upper aerodigestive tract pathoses is readily accepted and well-tolerated by otolaryngology patients. Patients overwhelmingly prefer the inoffice PDL over surgeries under general anesthesia. EBM rating: C-4.

AB - Introduction: Recent advances in technology have facilitated a movement toward unsedated in-office treatment of laryngeal, tracheal, and esophageal lesions. The objective of this study was to determine patient tolerance of inoffice pulsed-dye laser (PDL) treatment of upper aerodigestive tract pathoses via the transnasal esophagoscope. Methods: Three hundred twenty-eight unsedated in-office PDL cases were performed at a university-based tertiary referral center in 131 patients. These procedures were performed for various upper aerodigestive pathoses, including recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, chronic granulomas, and recurrent leukoplakia. Eighty-nine subjects completed a phone survey concerning their discomfort level after the PDL procedure. They were also asked specific questions about recovery time, pain medication, and preference of operating room versus inoffice procedures. Results: The average comfort score was 7.4 (10 being minimal discomfort). Eighty-four percent did not use any pain medication; 87% stated that, if possible, they would prefer to undergo unsedated inoffice procedures rather than surgeries under general anesthesia for further treatment of their upper aerodigestive tract pathosis. Conclusions: Unsedated transnasal treatment of upper aerodigestive tract pathoses is readily accepted and well-tolerated by otolaryngology patients. Patients overwhelmingly prefer the inoffice PDL over surgeries under general anesthesia. EBM rating: C-4.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646799451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646799451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.otohns.2006.01.019

DO - 10.1016/j.otohns.2006.01.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 16730550

AN - SCOPUS:33646799451

VL - 134

SP - 1023

EP - 1027

JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

SN - 0194-5998

IS - 6

ER -