This study aimed to present experience with surgical treatment of laryngeal cleft cases through both open and endoscopic approaches.

A retrospective evaluation of all patients diagnosed as having a laryngeal cleft in a tertiary hospital over 10 years was performed. Pre-operative data, conservative and surgical management of cases, and outcomes were collected, tabulated and analysed.

This study included 43 patients aged from 2 to 44 months with a median of 9.19 months. Concerning management technique, 12 patients had conservative treatment and the remaining 31 underwent a surgical procedure (of them, 20 patients underwent endoscopic intervention and 11 had the open surgical technique). In the open group, we used either tibial periosteum (six cases) or harvested costal cartilage (five cases).

Surgical management in the form of endoscopic Coblation-assisted or an open approach is indicated in severe cases or mild cases not responding to conservative management.

To validate the ovine model of profound oropharyngeal dysphagia and compare swallowing outcomes of laryngotracheal separation with those of total laryngectomy.

Under real-time fluoroscopy, swallowing trials were conducted using the head and neck of two Dorper cross ewes and one human cadaver, secured in lateral fluoroscopic orientation. Barium trials were administered at baseline, pre- and post-laryngohyoid suspension, following laryngotracheal separation, and following laryngectomy in the ovine model.

Mean pre-intervention Penetration Aspiration Scale and National Institutes of Health Swallow Safety Scale scores were 8 ± 0 and 6 ± 0 respectively in sheep and human cadavers, with 100 per cent intra- and inter-species reproducibility. These scores improved to 1 ± 0 and 2 ± 0 post-laryngohyoid suspension (p < 0.01). Aerodigestive tract residue was 18.6 ± 2.4 ml at baseline, 15.4 ± 3.8 ml after laryngotracheal separation and 3.0 ± 0.7 ml after total laryngectomy (p < 0.001).

The ovine model displayed perfect intra- and inter- species reliability for the Penetration Aspiration Scale and Swallow Safety Scale. Less aerodigestive tract residue after narrow-field laryngectomy suggests that swallowing outcomes after total laryngectomy are superior to those after laryngotracheal separation.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the clinical outcomes of using tracheoesophageal diversion for preventing intractable aspiration.

We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent tracheoesophageal diversion from 2003 to 2009 at our hospital (median age, 25 years; range, 0–78 years). End-to-side anastomosis was used in 16 cases and side-to-side anastomosis was used in 9.

The average operative time was 141 minutes for end-to-side anastomosis and 191 minutes for side-to-side anastomosis. Peri-operative complications were observed in only two (8 per cent) cases: one with infection and one with haematoma. No fistulas were observed. Aspiration was prevented in all cases, but the nutritional route depended on the swallowing function of the patient. Oral feeding was the main nutritional route after surgery in only four patients (16 per cent).

This procedure is well suited to patients who lack speech communication and are at high risk of aspiration.

The inhaled sharp foreign body is usually amenable to bronchoscopic extraction. When this fails, management poses a challenge. We present a logical approach to the inhaled pin inaccessible to the bronchoscope.

A 12-year-old girl presented to the accident and emergency unit after accidentally inhaling a pin. Multiple attempts with both rigid and flexible bronchoscopy failed to access the pin, which had lodged distally in the anteromedial basal segment of the left lung. Eventually, the pin was extracted at thoracotomy.

We discuss the reasons for extracting such pins, as opposed to leaving them in situ, and when to proceed from endoscopy to open surgery. Such knowledge is useful, not only to guide the multidisciplinary team in their combined approach to this unique challenge, but also to explain to the patient the rationale for the proposed treatment protocol.