It is important that the clinician counseling a patient about alternative approaches for preserving the larynx in the treatment of laryngeal cancer not only focus on the role of nonsurgical approaches but also explain the role of surgical approaches for organ preservation. Currently, a broad spectrum of surgical procedures are available for preserving the larynx in the setting of laryngeal carcinoma. The only way a clinician can appropriately counsel a patient with laryngeal cancer about treatment options is to gain a thorough understanding of both the surgical and nonsurgical alternatives.
In an era when patients have ready access to the medical literature via the Internet, it is even more important for clinicians to be prepared for educated questions, and to have a thorough understanding of the options that may benefit their patients. After a discussion of fundamental concepts, including the differences between surgical and nonsurgical organ-preservation approaches, this article will review the oncologic and functional outcomes associated with specific surgical approaches.
To begin with, we must ask what "saving the voice box" means. The basic function of a normal larynx is to allow for effective swallowing without aspiration. Almost all animals have some type of valve or sphincter that separates the alimentary tract from the respiratory tract, and like all other animals, we use the larynx to facilitate swallowing. If the larynx is not functioning adequately, then symptoms of dysphagia may become evident, and aspiration of food or saliva into the trachea may occur.
The second function of the larynx is in respiration. The larynx opens and closes spontaneously to allow for appropriate respiration. Naturally, we also use our larynx for communication. In that regard, the larynx functions as the generator of a tone. As air passes over the vocal cords or folds, they vibrate, thereby generating a tone. The true test of a treatment’s efficacy as a "laryngeal-preservation approach," however, is whether, the patient is still able to speak and eat without a permanent tracheostomy at the point when no local recurrence is expected (about 2 years or so for most treatments).
Side Effects of Laryngectomy
The issue of a permanent tracheostomy is particularly important because the main cause of a decline in quality of life associated with total laryngectomy is the permanent stoma. In fact, after total laryngectomy most patients are able to speak by using either an electrolarynx (an electronic tone generator), via esophageal speech, or with a voice prosthesis inserted into a tracheoesophageal fistula. All these methods of voice rehabilitation stem from the fact that what really needs to be replaced when the larynx is removed is a tone generator.
When the larynx is removed, the pharyngeal mucosa collapses on itself and can be made to vibrate as air passes over it. This can be accomplished by esophageal speech, for which the patient is taught to swallow air and expel it past the pharyngeal mucosa in a controlled fashion, causing the pharyngeal mucosa to vibrate and, in turn, to generate a tone. Today, speech is rehabilitated more commonly with a voice prosthesis that is inserted via a tracheoesophageal fistula. With a voice prosthesis, air can be forced from the trachea into the esophagus and pharynx via a small plastic one-way valve that prevents liquid and food from passing from the pharynx back into the trachea.
Nonetheless, patients frequently have the misconception that the main problem with total laryngectomy is that they will not be able to speak postoperatively. Consultation with a qualified speech pathologist can help a patient understand that almost all the chronic side effects of total laryngectomy are related to the stoma and that the loss of the ability to speak is not, in fact, the major problem. Stoma-related side effects include (1) a diminished sense of smell and therefore taste, because the patient can no longer breathe through the nose and mouth but instead must breathe through the tracheostoma; (2) difficulty in swallowing, related to changes in the pharyngeal anatomy; (3) the emotional and cosmetic effects of both losing an organ and living with a permanent tracheostoma; and (4) other lesser complaints.[3,4]
Risk of Treatment Failure
Why stress the issues related to total laryngectomy in an article about using surgery to save the larynx? A myth shared by many patients and clinicians is that choosing either a surgical or nonsurgical organ-preservation strategy means that the patient will avoid total laryngectomy and, therefore, does not need to be "disturbed" by any mention of this radical procedure. In fact, every organ-preservation treatment regimen, surgical and nonsurgical, is associated with some risk of local failure. Regardless of how high the reported local control rate of a particular treatment regimen may be, the patient must always be counseled about the possible need for total laryngectomy in case the primary treatment modality fails.
Obviously, if we are dealing with a very small T1 glottic carcinoma for which all treatment regimens offer a high probability of laryngeal preservation, the issues related to total laryngectomy in the event of failure may be mentioned but do not have to be stressed. Common sense dictates that a reported 5% local failure rate is low enough that most patients will never have to deal with the problems associated with a recurrence of the cancer. Nonetheless, patients in whom local treatment fails may become angry if they had previously been counseled that local failure never occurs or is so infrequent that they need not worry about it. A 5% rate of failure is not equivalent to a 0% failure rate. It is wise to advise patients that even though only a small percentage of patients with small T1 cancer may fail treatment, those who do fail after radiation therapy usually require total laryngectomy.
If the approach being recommended for a T2 glottic carcinoma is nonsurgical, then the clinician counseling the patient is obliged to discuss total laryngectomy in greater detail. Given the higher local failure rate, for example, following radiation therapy in patients with T2 lesions, there is approximately a 30% risk that patients so treated will ultimately need a total laryngectomy.
The issue of counseling patients about the impact of total laryngectomy becomes even more critical when treating a larger cancer such as a T3 glottic carcinoma with radiation or a chemoradiation approach such as the Veterans Affairs (VA) protocol. In the VA protocol, induction chemotherapy is followed by radiation therapy in patients with a 50% response at the primary site and by total laryngectomy with radiation therapy in patients with less than a 50% response. The critical point to stress to patients who will be receiving the VA protocol is that they are at significant risk (36%) of needing a total laryngectomy following either induction chemotherapy or definitive treatment.
For the VA protocol to be successful from a survival standpoint, patients must be followed very closely by a clinician who is competent at detecting a local recurrence. Discovering a local recurrence early may be a difficult proposition, even for an experienced clinician, because of the inflammatory changes and scarring that develop after irradiation of the larynx.
In summary, surgical salvage is an important aspect of organ-preservation approaches, with total laryngectomy being the most common salvage procedure. Prior to organ-preservation treatment, a speech pathologist should be consulted to counsel high-risk patients about the functional impact of total laryngectomy in the event it becomes necessary.
The goal of organ-preservation surgery is to remove enough of the larynx to allow for local control of the cancer, while preserving enough of the larynx to allow for speech and swallowing without a permanent tracheostomy. The open surgical approach, in which the skin is incised and the larynx is opened to remove the cancer, is known as conservation laryngeal surgery. In the late 19th century and most of the 20th century, vertical partial laryngectomy was the dominant technique in conservation laryngeal surgery, and then, as today, it was used for the treatment of selected glottic carcinomas.
In 1947, the supraglottic partial laryngectomy was introduced for the treatment of selected supraglottic carcinomas. When vertical partial laryngectomies and supraglottic partial laryngectomies were performed in patients with selected (mostly early) carcinomas, the local control rate as well as attainment of speech and swallowing without a permanent tracheostomy was high.[11,12] The problem with an approach limited to the use of a vertical partial laryngectomy or supraglottic partial laryngectomy was that a large number of patients with laryngeal cancers were not candidates for these procedures. The remaining surgical options were either the near-total or total laryngectomy—both of which require a permanent tracheostoma.
In response to this situation, some surgeons tried to expand the indication for vertical partial laryngectomy and supraglottic partial laryngectomy with so-called extended procedures. The problem with these approaches, however, was that extended vertical partial and extended supraglottic partial laryngectomies tended to be reported in small numbers, and the functional outcome and local control rates were variable.[14-17] In addition, these procedures were reported with a plethora of difficult-to-reproduce laryngeal reconstructions. A resident or fellow in training might have been exposed to few, if any, extended vertical partial and extended supraglottic partial laryngectomies, making it difficult for them to use these procedures in practice.
Thus, from a practical standpoint, the surgical management of laryngeal carcinoma in the United States included vertical partial laryngectomy and supraglottic partial laryngectomy for smaller lesions, with total laryngectomy reserved for larger lesions. Although this strategy led to a high local control rate, it also resulted in a large number of patients requiring a total laryngectomy and, hence, a permanent tracheostoma.
The VA Protocol
In response to the limitations associated with the conservation surgical approach to avoid a permanent tracheostoma in patients with higher-stage tumors, nonsurgical organ-preservation protocols using novel combinations of radiation and chemotherapy were developed. One such approach, the VA protocol resulted in laryngeal preservation in 64% of patients, without a decrease in survival when compared to total laryngectomy with postoperative radiation therapy. Despite the obviously superior outcome in terms of laryngeal preservation compared to total laryngectomy, many patients (36%) still lost their larynges.
In addition, another prospective randomized European trial recently evaluated the VA protocol and found that for T3 laryngeal carcinoma, survival was significantly superior in the total laryngectomy and postoperative radiation therapy arm (84%) vs the chemotherapy and radiation arm (69%). Although there were some weaknesses in the design of this European trial, a particular strength, compared to the original VA trial, was that it enrolled only patients with T3 cancer; the original VA protocol included patients with all T stages.
1. DeSanto LW, Olsen KD, Perry WC: Quality of life after surgical treatment of cancer of the larynx. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 104:763-769, 1995.
2. Belle VH, Rindso L, Thomsen JC: Primary speech restoration at laryngectomy by insertion of voice prosthesis —10 years experience. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 543:244-245, 2000.
3. Harwood AR, Rawlinson E: The quality of life of patients following treatment for laryngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9:335-338, 1983.
4. Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Aaronson NK, et al: Physical and psychosocial consequences of total laryngectomy. Clin Otolaryngol 15:421-425, 1990.
5. Viani L, Stell PM, Dalby JE: Recurrence after radiotherapy for glottic carcinoma. Cancer 67:577-584, 1991.
6. Howell-Burke D, Peters LJ, Goepfert H, et al: T2 glottic cancer. Recurrence, salvage, and survival after definitive radiotherapy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 116:830-835, 1990.
7. Induction chemotherapy plus radiation compared with surgery plus radiation in patients with advanced laryngeal cancer. The Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group [see comments]. N Engl J Med 324:1685-1690, 1991.
8. Ward PH, Calcaterra TC, Kagan AR: The enigma of post-radiation edema and recurrent or residual carcinoma of the larynx. Laryngoscope 85:522-529, 1975.
9. Thompson S: Intrinsic cancer of the larynx: Operation by laryngo-fissure: Lasting cure in 80% of cases. Br Med J 355-359, 1912.
10. Alonso JM: Conservative surgery of the larynx. Trans Am Acad Opthalmol Otolaryngol 51:633-642, 1947.
11. Liu C, Ward PH, Pleet L: Imbrication reconstruction following partial laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95:567-571, 1986.
12. Burstein FD, Calcaterra TC: Supraglottic laryngectomy: Series report and analysis of results. Laryngoscope 95:833-836, 1985.
13. Pearson BW, Woods RD, Hartman DE: Extended hemilaryngectomy for T3 glottic carcinoma with preservation of speech and swallowing. Laryngoscope 90:1950-1961, 1980.
14. Biller HF, Som ML: Vertical partial laryngectomy for glottic carcinoma with posterior subglottic extension. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 86:715-718, 1977.
15. Calcaterra TC: Bilateral omohyoid muscle flap reconstruction for anterior commissure cancer. Laryngoscope 97:810-813, 1987.
16. Friedman WH, Katsantonis GP, Siddoway JR, et al: Contralateral laryngoplasty after supraglottic laryngectomy with vertical extension. Arch Otolaryngol 107:742-745, 1981.
17. Nagahara K, Hirose A, Iwai H: Laryngeal reconstruction by free flap transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg 57:604-610, 1976.
18. Burgess LP, Yim DW: Thyroid cartilage flap reconstruction of the larynx following vertical partial laryngectomy: An interim report. Laryngoscope 98:605-609, 1988.
19. Richard JM, Sancho-Garnier H, Pessey JJ, et al: Randomized trial of induction chemotherapy in larynx carcinoma. Oral Oncol 34:224-228, 1998.
20. Majer H, Reifer W: Technique de laryngecomie permetant de conserver la permeabilite’ respiratoire la cricohyoido-pexie. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 76:677-683, 1959.
21. Laccourreye H, Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, et al: Supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidopexy: A partial laryngeal procedure for selected supraglottic and transglottic carcinomas. Laryngoscope 100:735-741, 1990.
22. Laccourreye H, Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, et al: Supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy: A partial laryngeal procedure for glottic carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 99:421-426, 1990.
23. Bron L, Brossard E, Monnier P, et al: Supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy and cricohyoidopexy for glottic and supraglottic carcinomas. Laryngoscope 110:627-634, 2000.
24. de Vincentiis M, Minni A, Gallo A, et al: Supracricoid partial laryngectomies: Oncologic and functional results. Head Neck 20:504-509, 1998.
25. Coman WB, Grigg RG, Tomkinson A, et al: Supracricoid laryngectomy: A significant advance in the management of laryngeal cancer. Aust N Z J Surg 68:630-634, 1998.
26. Delsupehe KG, Zink I, Lejaegere M, et al: Voice quality after narrow-margin laser cordectomy compared with laryngeal irradiation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121:528-533, 1999.
27. Lazarus CL, Logemann JA, Pauloski BR, et al: Swallowing disorders in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy. Laryngoscope 1996:1157-1166, 1996.
28. Honocodeevar-Boltezar I, Zargi M: Voice quality after radiation therapy for early glottic cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126:1097-1100, 2000.
29. Cragle SP, Brandenburg JH: Laser cordectomy or radiotherapy, cure rates, communication, and cost. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 108:648-654, 1993.
30. Woodson GE, Rosen CA, Murry T, et al: Assessing vocal function after chemoradiation for advanced laryngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 122:858-864, 1996.
31. McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG: Speech and survival: Tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 305:982-987, 1981.
32. Johns ME, Farrior E, Boyd JC, et al: Staging of supraglottic cancer. Arch Otolaryngol 108:700-702, 1982.
33. Hartig GH, Truelson JT, Weinstein GS: Supraglottic cancer. Head Neck 22:426-434, 2000.
34. Pameijer FA, Mancuso AA, Mendenhall WM, et al: Can pretreatment computed tomography predict local control in T3 squamous cell carcinoma of the glottic larynx treated with definitive radiotherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 37:1011-1021, 1997.
35. Weinstein GS, Laccourreye O, Brasnu D, et al: The role of CT and MR in planning conservation laryngeal surgery. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 6(2):497-504, 1996.
36. Kirchner JA, Som ML: Clinical significance of fixed vocal cord. Laryngoscope 81:1029-1044, 1971.
37. Brasnu D, Laccourreye H, Dulmet E, et al: Mobility of the vocal cord and arytenoid in squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx and hypopharynx: An anatomical and clinical comparative study. Ear Nose Throat J 69:324-330, 1990.
38. Hirano M, Kurita S, Tateishi M, et al: Deglutition following supraglottic horizontal laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 96:7-11, 1987.
39. Weinstein GS, Laccourreye O: Supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidepiglottopexy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 111:684-685, 1994.
40. Parsons JT, Mendenhall WM, Stringer SP, et al: Salvage surgery following radiation failure in squamous cell carcinoma of the supraglottic larynx [see comments]. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32:605-609, 1995.
41. Laccourreye O, Gutierrez-Fonseca R, Garcia D, et al: Local recurrence after vertical partial laryngectomy, a conservative modality of treatment for patients with stage I-II squamous cell carcinoma of the glottis. Cancer 85:2549-2556, 1999.
42. Pene F, Fletcher GH: Results in irradiation of the in situ carcinomas of the vocal cords. Cancer 37:2586-2590, 1976.
43. MacLeod PM, Daniel F: The role of radiotherapy in in-situ carcinoma of the larynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 18:113-117, 1990.
44. Miller AH, Fisher HR: Clues to the life history of carcinoma in situ of the larynx. Laryngoscope 81:1475-1480, 1971.
45. Zeitels SM: Phonomicrosurgical treatment of early glottic cancer and carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg 172:704-709, 1996.
46. Fein DA, Mendenhall WM, Parsons JT, et al: Carcinoma in situ of the glottic larynx: The role of radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27:379-384, 1993.
47. McGuirt WF, Blalock D, Koufman JA, et al: Comparative voice results after laser resection or irradiation of T1 vocal cord carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120:951-955, 1994.
48. Eckel HE, Thumfart WF: Laser surgery for the treatment of larynx carcinomas: Indications, techniques, and preliminary results. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 101:113-118, 1992.
49. Ferlito A, Silver CE, Howard DJ, et al: The role of partial laryngeal resection in current management of laryngeal cancer a collective review. Acta Otolaryngol 120:456-465, 2000.
50. Thomas JV, Olsen KD, Neel HB 3rd, et al: Early glottic carcinoma treated with open laryngeal procedures [see comments]. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120:264-268, 1994.
51. Bailey BJ: Conservation surgery in carcinoma of the laryngeal anterior commissure. South Med J 64:305-310, 1971.
52. Mohr RM, Quenelle DJ, Shumrick DA: Vertico-frontolateral laryngectomy (hemilaryngectomy). Indications, technique, and results. Arch Otolaryngol 109:384-395, 1983.
53. Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, Brasnu D, et al: Vertical partial laryngectomy: A critical analysis of local recurrence. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 100:68-71, 1991.
54. Rothfield RE, Johnson JT, Myers EN, et al: The role of hemilaryngectomy in the management of T1 vocal cord cancer [see comments]. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 115:677-680, 1989.
55. Kirchner JA, Som ML: The anterior commissure technique of partial laryngectomy: Clincal and laboratory observations. Laryngoscope 85:1308-1317, 1975.
56. Som ML: Cordal cancer with extension to the vocal process. Laryngoscope 85:1298-307, 1975.
57. Biller HF, Ogura JH, Pratt LL: Hemilaryngectomy for T2 glottic cancers. Arch Otolaryngol 93:238-243, 1971.
58. Johnson JT, Myers EN, Hao SP, et al: Outcome of open surgical therapy for glottic carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102:752-755, 1993.
59. Brasnu D, Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, et al: False vocal cord reconstruction of the glottis following vertical partial laryngectomy: A preliminary analysis. Laryngoscope 102:717-719, 1992.
60. Laccourreye O, Muscatello L, Laccourreye L, et al: Supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy for "early" glottic carcinoma classified as T1-T2N0 invading the anterior commissure. Am J Otolaryngol 18:385-390, 1997.
61. Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, Brasnu D, et al: A clinical trial of continuous cisplatin-fluorouracil induction chemotherapy and supracricoid partial laryngectomy for glottic carcinoma classified as T2 [see comments]. Cancer 74:2781-2790, 1994.
62. Laccourreye O, Salzer SJ, Brasnu D, et al: Glottic carcinoma with a fixed true vocal cord: Outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and supracricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 114:400-406, 1996.
63. Chevalier D, Laccourreye O, Brasnu D, et al: Cricohyoidoepiglottopexy for glottic carcinoma with fixation or impaired motion of the true vocal cord: 5-year oncologic results with 112 patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 106:364-369, 1997.
64. Guerrier B, Lallemant JG, Balmigere G, et al: Our experience in reconstructive surgery in glottic cancers. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 104:175-179, 1987.
65. Vigneau D, Calvet H, Passey JJ, et al: Indications techniques et resultats carcinologique et fonctionnele. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 109:145-147, 1988.
66. Traissac L, Verhulst J: Indications techniques et resultats des laryngectomies reconstructives. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 112:55-88, 1991.
67. Piquet JJ, Chevalier D: Subtotal laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy for the treatment of extended glottic carcinomas. Am J Surg 162:357-361, 1991.
68. Pech A, Cannoni M, Giovanni A, et al: Requisite selection of surgical technics in the treatment of cancer of the larynx. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 103:565-575, 1986.
69. Piquet JJ, Desaulty A, Decroix G: Crico-hyoido-epiglotto-pexie. Technique operatoire et resultats fonctionnels. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 91:681-689, 1974.
70. Crevier-Buchman L, Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, et al: Evolution of speech and voice following supracricoid partial laryngectomy. J Laryngol Otol 109:410-413, 1995.
71. Weinstein GS, Ruiz CR, Dooley P, et al: Larynx preservation with supracricoid partial laryngectomy results in improved quality of life when compared to total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 111(2):191-199, 2001.
72. Davis RK, Hayes JK: Management of supraglottic cancer: Selected endoscopic laser resection and postoperative irradiation. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 49:231-236, 1995.
73. Zeitels SM, Koufman JA, Davis RK, et al: Endoscopic treatment of supraglottic and hypopharynx cancer. Laryngoscope 104:71-78, 1994.
74. Ambrosch P, Kron M, Steiner W: Carbon dioxide laser microsurgery for early supraglottic carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 107:680-688, 1998.
75. Steiner W: Results of curative laser microsurgery of laryngeal carcinomas. Am J Otolaryngol 14:116-121, 1993.
76. Bocca E, Pignataro O, Oldini C, et al: Extended supraglottic laryngectomy. Review of 84 cases. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 96:384-386, 1987.
77. Lee NK, Goepfert H, Wendt CD: Supraglottic laryngectomy for intermediate-stage cancer: U. T. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience with combined therapy. Laryngoscope 100:831-836, 1990.
78. Spaulding CA, Constable WC, Levine PA, et al: Partial laryngectomy and radiotherapy for supraglottic cancer: A conservative approach. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 98:125-129, 1988.
79. Herranz-Gonzalez J, Gavilan J, Martinez-Vidal J, et al: Supraglottic laryngectomy: Functional and oncologic results. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 105:18-22, 1996.
80. Klein AD, Wasserstrom JP, Sessions DG, et al: Rehabilitation of partial laryngectomy patients. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 84:324-334, 1977.
81. Rademaker AW, Logemann JA, Pauloski BR, et al: Recovery of postoperative swallowing in patients undergoing partial laryngectomy. Head Neck 15:325-334, 1993.
82. Laccourreye O, Brasnu D, Merite-Drancy A, et al: Cricohyoidopexy in selected infrahyoid epiglottic carcinomas presenting with pathological preepiglottic space invasion. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 119:881-886, 1993.
83. Chevalier D, Piquet JJ: Subtotal laryngectomy with cricohyoidopexy for supraglottic carcinoma: Review of 61 cases. Am J Surg 168:472-473, 1994.
84. Laccourreye O, Crevier-Buchmann L, Weinstein G, et al: Duration and frequency characteristics of speech and voice following supracricoid partial laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 104:516-521, 1995.
85. DeSanto LW, Lillie JC, Devine KD: Surgical salvage after radiation for laryngeal cancer. Laryngoscope 86:649-657, 1976.
86. Skolnik EM, Martin L, Yee KF, et al: Radiation failures in cancer of the larynx. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 84:804-811, 1975.
87. Biller HF, Barnhill FR Jr, Ogura JH, et al: Hemilaryngectomy following radiation failure for carcinoma of the vocal cords. Laryngoscope 80:249-253, 1970.
88. Sorensen H, Hansen HS, Thomsen KA: Partial laryngectomy following irradiation. Laryngoscope 90:1344-1349, 1980.
89. Shaw HJ: Role of partial laryngectomy after irradiation in the treatment of laryngeal cancer: A view from the United Kingdom. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 100:268-273, 1991.
90. Laccourreye O, Weinstein G, Naudo P, et al: Supracricoid partial laryngectomy after failed laryngeal radiation therapy. Laryngoscope 106:495-498, 1996.
91. Weinstein GS, Laccaurrege O, Rassekh C: Conservation Laryngeal Surgery in Cummings C, Frederickson JM, Harker LA, et al (eds): Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, W.B. Saunders, 1998.
92. Weinstein GS, Laccourege O, Brosnur P, et al: Organ Preservation Surgery for Laryngeal Cancer. San Diego, Singular Publishing, 1999.