Comparison of transoral laser surgery and open partial surgery in early-stage laryngeal cancers

Authors

  • Sermin Can Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Clinic, Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Türkiye
  • Muhammed Ayral Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Clinic, Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Türkiye
  • Mehmet Akdag Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Clinic, Dicle University, Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakır, Türkiye

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30714/j-ebr.2026.264

Keywords:

Laser surgery, open partial laryngectomy, demographic data, tracheostomy

Abstract

Aim: To compare demographic data between open partial laryngectomy (OPL) and transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) in early-stage laryngeal cancer.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 55 patients treated for early-stage (T1–T2, N0, M0) glottic squamous cell carcinoma between 2015 and 2025. Thirty-one patients underwent TLM and 24 underwent OPL. Hospital stay duration, tracheostomy rates, and nasogastric tube placement rates were evaluated.

Results: Demographic and tumor stage distributions were comparable between groups. None of the patients in the TLM group required tracheostomy or nasogastric tube placement, whereas all patients in the OPL group did. The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TLM group (3.16 ± 1.93 days) compared with the OPL group (21.21 ± 11.41 days; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: TLM provides superior demographic data compared to OPL in early-stage laryngeal cancer, with significantly reduced hospital stay, elimination of tracheostomy and nasogastric tube requirements, and faster functional recovery. These findings support TLM as the preferred surgical approach for early-stage glottic cancers.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-01

How to Cite

Can, S., Ayral, M., & Akdag, M. (2026). Comparison of transoral laser surgery and open partial surgery in early-stage laryngeal cancers. EXPERIMENTAL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, 9(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.30714/j-ebr.2026.264