Table 3 Comparison of current work with recent studies investigating oncologic and functional outcomes following TLM for T1a glottic cancer
Study | Year | Study type | Country | TLM cohort size | Stage | OS | DSS | UC with TLM | LP | Voice outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Curry et al. (current work) | 2022 | Retro | Canada | 48 | T1a | 87 | 100 | 90.4 | 100 | VHI-10: significant improvement for those with abnormal pre op scores (> 11) |
Canis et al. [17] | 2015 | Retro | Germany | 404 | T1a | 88 | 98 | NR | 97 | NR |
Schrijvers et al. [23] | 2009 | Retro | Netherlands | 49 | T1a | 92 | 100 | NR | 96 | NR |
Mahler et al. [24]* | 2010 | Pro | Norway | 188 | T1a | 88 | 98 | NR | 99 | NR |
Peretti et al. [16] | 2010 | Retro | Italy | 404 | T1 | NR | 99 | 95 | 98 | NR |
Low et al. [8] | 2017 | Retro | Canada | 53 | T1a | 86 | 100 | 100 | 100 | NR |
Aaltonen et al. [6] | 2014 | RCT | Finland | 31 | T1a | 97 | 97 | NR | NR | GRBAS: similar overall function between RT and TLM but voice breathier and glottic gap increased with TLM |
Mehel et al. [25] | 2019 | Retro | Turkey | 18 | Tis-T1a | NR | NR | NR | NR | VHI: no significant difference between TLM and RT in terms of functional evaluation and overall score; physiological and emotional scores significantly higher in TLM group GRBAS: no significant difference between TLM and RT |
Laoufi et al. [26] | 2014 | Retro | France | 44 (voice) 74 (oncologic) | T1a | 88 | 100 | NR | NR | VHI: significant difference in favor of RT compared to TLM |