ArticleAME case reports2025
Type 1 laryngeal cleft management: a pediatric tertiary care center case series.
Article in AME case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Type 1 laryngeal cleft (LC) is a congenital condition that can present with coughing, choking, and aspiration. There are several management options, including laryngoplasty injections and endoscopic laser surgery. We aimed to review the clinical presentations, investigations, comorbidities, management options, recurrence, and outcomes of patients with type 1 LC in our pediatric tertiary center. Case Description: Six patients with LC type 1 were included in this case series. Their mean age was 22.5 months [standard deviation (SD): 17.1]. All patients were male, except for one. The mean weight was 12.2 kg (SD: 5.3). The mean height was 84.2 cm (SD: 23.9). All patients experienced cough and choking with feeding. Of the six patients, five had no airway symptoms and one had a stridor. In our tertiary care hospital, we initially managed patients with type 1 LC with hyaluronic acid injections for a few months, depending on the severity of the condition, followed by follow-up of the patient. If coughing and/or choking reoccur or persists, surgical repair is the next management option. Although conservative therapy has been useful for 36% of patients with type 1 LC, endoscopic surgical repair remains the optimal management choice. We advocate for injection laryngoplasty as a trial to confirm the diagnosis and anticipated benefit from endoscopic surgical repairs as it offers less invasive management option and decreases the risk of developing potentially life-threatening complications. Conclusions: Type 1 LC is a rare congenital condition that can be managed using injections. However, endoscopic laser repair remains the gold standard treatment for type 1 LC. The risk of recurrence after initial hyaluronic acid administration is high; however, recurrent symptoms can be treated with endoscopic laser repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.