Device Failure During Injection Medialization Laryngoplasty

  • Nicole Molin
    Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for articles by this author
  • Mursalin M. Anis
    University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
    Search for articles by this author
  • Ahmed M.S. Soliman
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ahmed M.S. Soliman, Voice Airway, & Swallowing Center, Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Lewis Katz School of Medicine,Temple University, 3440 N. Broad Street Kresge West 310, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140, Tel. 215-707-3665, Fax. 215-707-7523.
    Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    Search for articles by this author
Published:September 11, 2022DOI:



      Injection medialization laryngoplasty is a commonly performed procedure for the management of glottic insufficiency. Among complications of this procedure is device failure, for which the literature is scarce. Our goal was to determine the prevalence of needle failure during injection laryngoplasty among members of the American Bronchoesophagological Association (ABEA).


      A questionnaire was designed and subsequently sent to members of ABEA via electronic mail. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.


      Twenty-four members (6.7%) completed the survey. Eighty three percent reported experience with needle failure; 59% of these were needle clogging, 22% needle twisting, and 19% needle tip fracture. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported needle failure during a percutaneous approach, and 48% reported using calcium hydroxyapatite during device failure. Twenty percent reported having to abort the procedure due to device failure. Twenty five percent of respondents experienced needle tip fracture that led to an airway or esophageal foreign body.


      Needle failure during injection laryngoplasty was reported by most respondents. Most commonly this was due to clogging or twisting which was managed by replacing the needle but in 25% of cases was due to a broken tip that results in an aerodigestive tract foreign body and aborting of the procedure in most cases.

      Key words

      Level of Evidence

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Brunings W.
        About a new treatment method of recurrence lameness.
        Vern Ver Dtsch Laryngol. 1911; 18: 525-530
        • Amin MR.
        Thyrohyoid approach for vocal fold augmentation.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2006; 115: 699-702
        • Trask DK
        • Shellenberger DL
        • Hoffman HT.
        Transnasal, endoscopic vocal fold augmentation.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 2262-2265
        • Dion GR
        • Nielsen SW.
        In-office laryngology injections.
        Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2019; 52: 521-536
        • Bock JM
        • Lee JH
        • Robinson RA
        • et al.
        Migration of cymetra after vocal fold injection for laryngeal paralysis.
        Laryngoscope. 2007; 117: 2251-2254
        • Carroll TL
        • Rosen CA.
        Long-term results of calcium hydroxylapatite for vocal fold augmentation.
        Laryngoscope. 2011; 121: 313-319
        • DeFatta RA
        • Chowdhury FR
        • Sataloff RT.
        Complications of injection laryngoplasty using calcium hydroxylapatite.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 614-618
        • Mathison CC
        • Villari CR
        • Klein AM
        • et al.
        Comparison of outcomes and complications between awake and asleep injection laryngoplasty: a case-control study.
        Laryngoscope [Internet]. 2009; 119: 1417-1423
        • Aydoğan LB
        • Tuncer U
        • Soylu L
        • et al.
        Rigid bronchoscopy for the suspicion of foreign body in the airway.
        Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2006; 70: 823-828
        • Fawole O
        • Goncalves S
        • Anis MM.
        Needle fracture during injection medialization laryngoplasty.
        J Voice. 2021;
        • Rosow DE
        • Chen S.
        Office removal of a subglottic bread clip.
        Case Rep Otolaryngol. 2013; 2013: 480676
        • Ambe P
        • Weber SA
        • Schauer M
        • et al.
        Swallowed foreign bodies in adults.
        Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012; 109: 869
        • Aiolfi A
        • Ferrari D
        • Riva CG
        • et al.
        Esophageal foreign bodies in adults: systematic review of the literature.
        Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018; 53: 1171-1178
        • Malamed SF
        • Reed K
        • Poorsattar S.
        Needle breakage: incidence and prevention.
        Dent Clin North Am [Internet]. 2010; 54 (Available at:): 745-756
        • Acham S
        • Truschnegg A
        • Rugani P
        • et al.
        Needle fracture as a complication of dental local anesthesia: recommendations for prevention and a comprehensive treatment algorithm based on literature from the past four decades.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23: 1109-1119
        • De Bardi M
        • Müller R
        • Grünzweig C
        • et al.
        On the needle clogging of staked-in-needle pre-filled syringes: mechanism of liquid entering the needle and solidification process.
        Eur J Pharm Biopharm [Internet]. 2018; 128 (Available at:): 272-281
      1. Hubbard WG. Tissue augmentation material and method. Google Patents; 2011. Available at: