<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>14(6)</volume><submitter>Marchant F</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Surgical resection has proven to be the most effective long-term treatment in managing airway stenoses and has shown to decrease the risk of tumor recurrence and mortality in patients with tumor infiltration to the airways. However, there are only a few Nordic reports on the results of a tracheal resection (TR) and cricotracheal resection (CTR). This study aimed to evaluate the volume and short-term outcome of TR and CTR at our institution.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Retrospective review of patients who underwent TR or CTR between 2004 and 2019 at the Helsinki University Hospital (Helsinki, Finland).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Forty-four patients were included, of which 21 (47.7%) underwent surgery for a tumor, whereas 23 (52.3%) were operated for a benign stenosis. The most common tumor type was thyroid carcinoma with tracheal invasion (15.9%). The distance between the upper margin of the stenosis or tumor infiltration and the vocal cords was in median 3 [interquartile range (IQR), 2-5] cm and the median length of resection 2.5 (IQR, 2-3.5) cm. Overall success rate was 75% (no need for reoperation or postoperative intervention). Complications occurred in 20 (45.5%) patients, of which 10 patients were operated for a tumor, and 10 for a benign stenosis.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Tracheal and CTRs were effective in treating tracheal and subglottic stenoses with variable etiology. However, complications were common especially following cricotracheal tumor resections. These procedures show a clear need for further centralization due to their complex nature and should therefore be performed primarily at institutes with highly experienced multi-professional teams.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Journal of thoracic disease</journal><pagination>2053-2060</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9264091</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Tracheal and laryngotracheal resections and reconstructions-a single-centre experience.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9264091</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Salo J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Rasanen J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Marchant F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Makitie A</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Tracheal and laryngotracheal resections and reconstructions-a single-centre experience.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Surgical resection has proven to be the most effective long-term treatment in managing airway stenoses and has shown to decrease the risk of tumor recurrence and mortality in patients with tumor infiltration to the airways. However, there are only a few Nordic reports on the results of a tracheal resection (TR) and cricotracheal resection (CTR). This study aimed to evaluate the volume and short-term outcome of TR and CTR at our institution.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Retrospective review of patients who underwent TR or CTR between 2004 and 2019 at the Helsinki University Hospital (Helsinki, Finland).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Forty-four patients were included, of which 21 (47.7%) underwent surgery for a tumor, whereas 23 (52.3%) were operated for a benign stenosis. The most common tumor type was thyroid carcinoma with tracheal invasion (15.9%). The distance between the upper margin of the stenosis or tumor infiltration and the vocal cords was in median 3 [interquartile range (IQR), 2-5] cm and the median length of resection 2.5 (IQR, 2-3.5) cm. Overall success rate was 75% (no need for reoperation or postoperative intervention). Complications occurred in 20 (45.5%) patients, of which 10 patients were operated for a tumor, and 10 for a benign stenosis.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Tracheal and CTRs were effective in treating tracheal and subglottic stenoses with variable etiology. However, complications were common especially following cricotracheal tumor resections. These procedures show a clear need for further centralization due to their complex nature and should therefore be performed primarily at institutes with highly experienced multi-professional teams.</description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 Jun</publication><modification>2024-10-18T22:55:54.784Z</modification><creation>2024-10-18T22:55:54.784Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9264091</accession><cross_references><pubmed>35813757</pubmed><doi>10.21037/jtd-21-1963</doi></cross_references></HashMap>