Objective: To evaluate outcomes of injection laryngoplasty (IL) and endoscopic surgical repair for the treatment of type 1 laryngeal clefts (LC1) and to determine the most common presentations of LC1. Methods: Primary studies were searched for in PubMed, Scopus, OVID, and Cochrane Library using search terms laryngeal cleft and laryngotracheoesophageal cleft for articles published from database inception through August 2019. The search identified all articles pertaining to the symptomatology and management of LC1. Meta-analysis was performed on presenting symptoms and improvement of clinical symptoms and swallow function. Results: Twenty-four studies, comprising 713 patients with a mean age of 33.7 months (range 0-168 months), were included. The most common presenting symptoms were aspiration (80%, CI [55%-96%]), dysphagia (61%, CI [47%-74%]), and choking (57%, CI [37%-76%]). Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was the most common comorbidity (68%, CI [51%-83%]) and premature birth comprised 27% [21%-32%] of the patients. Overall, 38% of patients received IL as a primary therapy. Prior to injection, 91% [87%-94%] of patients aspirated on swallow evaluations, and 62% [55%-68%] aspirated post-injection. At an average follow-up time of 6.8 months, 90% [70%-100%] of parents reported symptom improvement. An additional 54% of patients underwent endoscopic surgical repair as primary treatment. The rate of aspiration decreased from 73% [43%-94%] to 28% [13%-46%] after repair. At a mean follow-up of 14.2 months, 80% [67%-91%] reported symptom improvement. Conclusion: A high level of clinical suspicion is necessary to detect LC1 since its most common presenting symptoms overlap with other diseases commonly found in this patient population. Both IL and formal surgical repair were effective in managing LC1.

Objectives: To evaluate the overall perioperative times among pediatric patients undergoing adenotonsillectomy (AT) who, in the perioperative period, received either parental presence at induction of anesthesia (PPIA), midazolam, both, or neither. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients under the age of twelve years who underwent AT during 2018 was performed at a tertiary children's hospital. Exclusion criteria were: patients with concomitant procedures done at the time of AT, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score greater than 3, or unclear documentation of PPIA participation. Patients were categorized into one of four groups: those who received PPIA, those who received midazolam, and those who received both or neither. Time spent in holding, the operating room, and in recovery were recorded. For comparison of continuous variables, either a One-Way ANOVA or a Kruskal-Wallis test was used as appropriate with post-hoc comparisons using a Dunn's Test. Results: A total of 274 patient charts were reviewed. After application of exclusion criteria, 152 charts were included for analysis. A total of 69 patients had PPIA alone, 18 received midazolam alone, 57 received both, and 8 had neither. The median age of the patients was 5.34 years (range 0.62-11.97). There was no significant difference in median time in holding between groups, but there was a significant difference in both OR and recovery time (p = 0.005 and p = 0.021 respectively). On further analysis with post-hoc pairwise comparisons, the only significant difference was between the midazolam only group and the group who received both PPIA and midazolam (p < 0.05), with patients receiving both having a shorter OR duration. Conclusion: Patients who received both PPIA and midazolam had a shorter OR duration than patients in the midazolam only group. There were no significant differences found in holding time or recovery time between groups. This supports the conclusion that PPIA can be implemented when deemed appropriate without increasing time spent in the operating room and may even have a beneficial effect when compounded with midazolam.

ObjectiveSpin, the misrepresentation and distortion of research findings, has been shown to affect clinical decision making. Spin has been found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in various fields of medicine, but no study has tested for the presence of spin in otolaryngology RCTs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the abstracts of RCTs found in the otolaryngology literature for spin.MethodsIn this cross‐sectional analysis, we analyzed the abstracts of RCTs for spin using a pilot‐tested form. Double data extraction was performed by two blinded authors, and discrepancies were resolved using mutual discussion.ResultsOut of the 534 PubMed citations retrieved by our search string, 162 parallel‐group RCTs with clearly defined primary and secondary endpoints were identified. Further analysis identified 47 trials with nonsignificant primary outcomes, which were then evaluated for spin. Spin was identified in 33 of the 47 (70%) abstracts. Spin was found in the results sections of 25 (53%) of the included abstracts and was found in the conclusion section of 27 (57%) of the abstracts. Spin was not present in the titles of any of the included studies.ConclusionSpin was common in our sample of otolaryngology RCTs. Spin may potentially create false impressions about the true validity of a drug or intervention. Further research needs to test for potential clinical implications of spin in the otolaryngology literature.Level of EvidenceNALaryngoscope, 129:2036–2040, 2019

IMPORTANCE:The ability of clinical practice guidelines to improve patient outcomes depends on the quality of evidence that they are built upon. Research into tonsillectomy in children is lacking, and the gaps in evidence were identified by guideline authors. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to evaluate the extent that new research is addressing the gaps identified in the AAO-HNS Tonsillectomy in Children Guideline. DESIGN:For each recommendation in the AAO-HNS guideline Tonsillectomy In Children, we created PICO (Participants, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions and search strings. PubMed was searched to locate studies undertaken after the final literature search performed by the AAO-HNS work group. These studies were then extracted and analyzed. SETTING:This study is relevant to all invested in focusing otolaryngological research on questions which currently lack strong evidence. PARTICIPANTS:Trials in tonsillectomy that started after the development of the AAO-HNS clinical practice guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The main outcome measures of this study is the extent to which tonsillectomy research is addressing the evidence gaps listed in the clinical practice guideline. RESULTS:Of the 2519 studies included in our sample, 276 (11%) were relevant to the 18 recommendations made within the Tonsillectomy in Pediatric Patients clinical practice guideline. All but one of the recommendations was met by at least one study. CONCLUSIONS:and Relevance: Our findings indicate that knowledge gaps within the guideline at publication may have since been addressed and a guideline update may thus be warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:NA.