Timing of nimodipine therapy for the treatment of vocal fold paralysis.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To retrospectively determine optimal timing for initiation of nimodipine within a cohort of patients with acute vocal fold paralysis (VFP). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective patient review. METHODS: Subjects were divided into three groups: initiation within 15 days postinjury (n = 19), between 15 and 30 days postinjury (n = 23), or greater than 30 days postinjury (n = 11). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (53 paralyzed vocal folds [VFs]) met entrance criteria and were offered and started off-label nimodipine treatment. Thirty-six of 53 VFs recovered purposeful motion (67.9%). There was no significant difference in the rate of VF recovery among patients who began nimodipine within 15 days (68.4%), patients who started nimodipine between 15 and 30 days (73.9%) of nerve injury (P = .1405), and patients who initiated nimodipine after 30 days postinjury (54.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Nimodipine treatment for acute VFP yielded equal VF motion recovery rates regardless of when the medication was initiated. Time to recovery of motion was not different between groups studied.

Comparison of tolerance and cost-effectiveness of two nasal anesthesia techniques for transnasal flexible laryngoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: (1) Compare tolerance of aerosolized spray versus syringe administration of topical anesthesia for transnasal flexible laryngoscopy (TFL), (2) analyze cost-effectiveness of both techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, blinded, randomized trial. SETTING: Tertiary academic laryngology practice. METHODS: One hundred and eight patients underwent TFL over 3 months. Patients were randomized to receive equivalent dose 1:1 neosynephrine/4% plain lidocaine mixture via aerosolized spray ("spray") or application with 1-cc syringe ("syringe"). Patients and physicians independently rated comfort of TFL on 5-point scale (1 = not at all comfortable to 5 = very comfortable). Data were collected on patient and endoscopist experience with TFL and reasons for poor tolerance of laryngoscopy. Cost analyses of disposable spray tips and syringes were calculated. RESULTS: Both patients and physicians reported very high tolerance of TFL. Patient tolerance appears to be similar between spray- versus syringe-administered anesthesia, although study limitations preclude definitive analysis. Poor tolerance of laryngoscopy was reported in 6.5% with comparable distribution between anesthetic delivery methods. There was no impact of patient prior experience with TFL, and there was no difference between anesthetic methods for TFL performed by resident, fellow, or attending. The difference between costs of the disposable spray tip versus syringe was $1.32 per unit. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a 1-cc syringe is an effective method to provide topical nasal anesthesia for TFL and saves $1.32 per unit compared to disposable spray tips. In our practice, transition to syringe-administered nasal anesthesia is projected to save $1300 per 1000 patients, or an anticipated $1000 per year per physician, with excellent patient tolerance of TFL.