In July 1999, the European Laryngological Society (ELS) has accepted a proposal for the classification of different laryngeal endoscopic cordectomies. This is actually a common classification system used as a tool for surgical training, documentation and comparison of results. The same harmonization work is deemed necessary for the treatment of supraglottic lesions. The ELS is proposing a classification of the different laryngeal endoscopic supraglottic partial laryngectomies. This classification comprises four types of supraglottic laryngectomies: Type I, limited excision of small size superficial lesions of the free edge of the epiglottis, the ary-epiglottic fold, the arytenoid, or the ventricular fold or any other part of the supraglottis; Type II, medial supraglottic laryngectomy without resection of the pre-epiglottic space, suitable for T1 lesions of either the suprahyoid or the infrahyoid laryngeal surface of the epiglottis (Type IIa, superior hemi-epiglottectomy or Type IIb, total epiglottectomy, respectively); Type III, medial supraglottic laryngectomy with resection of the pre-epiglottic space, suitable for T1-T2 tumors of the infrahyoid endolaryngeal epiglottis without (Type IIIa) or with (Type IIIb) extension to the ventricular fold, necessitating its excision; finally, Type IV, lateral supraglottic laryngectomy, suitable for tumors of the threefolds' region, which may include the ventricular fold (Type IVa) or the arytenoid (Type IVb), when involved. As in the cases of endoscopic cordectomies, these operations are similarly classified according to the surgical approach used and the degree of resection completed in order to facilitate their use in daily clinical practice.

Introduction: Middle ear glandular neoplasms are infrequent causes of a middle ear mass. They can have exocrine and/or neuroendocrine differentiation. It is currently thought that these tumors are indistinguishable each from another. Herein, we present a new case of a middle ear glandular neoplasm. Our objective is to review all cases described in the literature in order to identify the clinical features, the gross pathology, the histopathology, the immunohistochemistry, to discuss the differential diagnosis, the treatment, the rate of recurrence, the follow-up, the incidence of metastasis, the prognosis and to present a new classification of middle ear glandular neoplasm.

Compared to herpes zoster oticus, varicella zoster virus (VZV) reactivations in immunocompetent patients are rare in laryngeal region. Usually, associated vocal cord paralyses are reported. Herein is a case report of a patient with laryngeal zoster without any associated motor disorders. An attempt is made to assign the distribution of mucosal eruptions to the appropriate neuroanatomical structures. A description of the serological course of VZV IgM and IgG are provided. Vesicles were found on the left sensory distribution areas of the superior laryngeal nerve. VZV IgM and IgG antibodies reached their peak 1 month after initial symptoms. Attentive follow-up and no antiviral therapy were advocated because of the absence of any immune deficiency or endoscopic suspicion of malignancy. In this case of VZV reactivation in the sensitive area of the superior laryngeal nerve, serological profiles of VZV IgM and IgG were profoundly modified up to the fourth month.

No abstract

The use of different noise annoyance scales across studies and socio-acoustic surveys, in particular the popular 5-point verbal and 11-point numerical scales, has made the evaluation, comparison, and pooling of noise annoyance responses among studies a taxing issue. This is particularly the case when “high annoyance” (HA) responses need to be compared and when the original studies used different scales; thus, there are different so-called cutoff points that define the part of the scale that indicates the HA status. This paper provides practical guidance on pooling and comparing the respective annoyance data in both the linear and logistic regression context in a statistically adequate manner. It caters to researchers who want to carry out pooled analyses on annoyance data that have been collected on different scales or need to compare exposure–HA relationships between the 5-point and 11-point scales. The necessary simulation of a cutoff point non-native to an original scale can be achieved with a random assignment approach, which is exemplified in the paper using original response data from a range of recent noise annoyance surveys. A code example in the R language is provided for easy implementation of the pertinent procedures with one’s own survey data. Lastly, the not insignificant limitations of combining and/or comparing responses from different noise annoyance scales are discussed.