Objective: To investigate postacute laryngeal injuries and dysfunctions (PLID) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: Three independent investigators performed a systematic review of the current literature studying PLID in patients with a history of COVID-19. The review was performed according to PRISMA Statement. Epidemiological, clinical, hospitalization features, laryngeal diseases and voice outcomes were extracted from the included papers. Results: Eight papers met our inclusion criteria (393 patients) corresponding to 5 uncontrolled prospective and 3 retrospective studies. The most prevalent PLID were vocal fold dysmotility (65%), vocal fold edema (35%), laryngopharyngeal reflux (21%), and muscle tension dysphonia (21%). Posterior glottic stenosis (12%), granuloma (14%), and posterior glottic diastasis (12%) were the most common injuries. Most patients with PLID were obese and had a history of intensive care unit hospitalization, and orotracheal intubation. The delay between the discharge and the laryngology office consultation ranged from 51 to 122 days. The mean duration of intubation ranged from 10 to 34 days. Seventy-eight (49%) intubated patients were in prone position. The proportion of patients requiring surgical treatment ranged from 39% to 70% (mean=48%). There was an important heterogeneity between studies about inclusion, exclusion criteria and outcomes. Conclusion: COVID-19 appeared to be associated with PLID, especially in patients with a history of intubation. However, future controlled studies are needed to evaluate if intubated COVID-19 patients reported more frequently PLID than patients who were intubated for other conditions.

Background: Vaccinating children against COVID-19 is an essential public health strategy in order to reach herd immunity and prevent illness among children and adults. Parents are facing tremendous stress in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination program for children. In this study, we aimed to investigate parents’ willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 in North Kivu province (DRC). Methods: A cross-sectional survey between December 01, 2021 to January 20, 2022 in 6 health zones (Goma, Karisimbi, Butembo, Beni, Kamango and Katwa) was conducted in the province of North Kivu. In each health zone, we selected 5 clusters (Health area) using the method of probabilistic selection proportional to population size. In total, 522 parents participated in our study. Results: Overall, 32.8% of parents intended to vaccinate their children. In the multivariate analysis, younger age of parents (aOR : 2.40, CI : [1.50-3.83]), higher level of fear that “a member of my family” could contract COVID-19 (aOR : 2.35, CI : [1.38-4.02]), higher level of perceived vulnerability to COVID-19 within the family (aOR : 1.70, CI : [1.005-2.2881]), higher level of perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 within the family (aOR : 3.07, CI : [1.80-5.23]), and history of vaccination against COVID-19 among parents (aOR : 16.47, CI : [8.39-32.33]), were significantly associated with the intention to have their children or adolescents vaccinated. Conclusion: Willingness of parents to vaccinate their children against the COVID-19 vaccination was low in North Kivu. There is undeniably in this region a need to reinsure the populations about vaccine safety for both children and adults. Public health authorities should also address widespread misinformation about vaccines in a timely manner.

Background: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a common disease in otolaryngology characterized by an inflammatory reaction of the mucosa of the upper aerodigestive tract caused by digestive refluxate enzymes. LPR has been identified as etiological or favoring factor of laryngeal, oral, sinonasal or otological diseases. In this case-series, we reported atypical clinical presentation of LPR in patients presenting in our clinic with reflux. Methods: A retrospective medical chart review of 351 patients with LPR treated in the European Reflux Clinic in Brussels, Poitiers and Paris was performed. In order to be included, patients had to report atypical clinical presentation of LPR, consisting of symptoms or findings that are not described in reflux symptom score and reflux sign assessment. The LPR diagnosis was confirmed with 24-hour hypopharyngeal-esophageal impedance pH-study and patients were treated with a combination of diet, proton pump inhibitors and alginates. The atypical symptoms or findings had to be resolved from pre- to posttreatment Results: From 2017 to 2021, 21 patients with atypical LPR were treated in our center. The clinical presentation consisted of recurrent aphthosis or burning mouth (N=9), recurrent burps and abdominal disorders (N=2), posterior nasal obstruction (N=2), recurrent acute suppurative otitis media (N=2), severe vocal fold dysplasia (N=2), and recurrent acute rhinopharyngitis (N=1), tearing (N=1), aspirations (N=1) or tracheobronchitis (N=1). Abnormal upper aerodigestive tract reflux events were identified in all of these patients. Atypical clinical findings resolved and did not recur after an adequate anti-reflux treatment. Conclusion: LPR may present with various clinical presentations including mouth, eye, tracheobronchial, nasal or laryngeal findings, which may all regress with an adequate treatment. Future studies are needed to better specify the relationship between LPR and these atypical findings through analyses identifying gastroduodenal enzyme in the enflamed tissue.

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is a prevalent disease in the general population and may have acute or chronic clinical presentation. LPR may be misdiagnosed in primary care medicine regarding the lack of gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms and the lack of findings at the gastrointestinal endoscopy. Depending on the physician field of expertise and experience, LPR may be clinically over- or under-diagnosed. The management of LPR is possible in primary care medicine but primary care physician has to consider some red flags that requires to address the patient to otolaryngologist or gastroenterologist. The use of patient-reported outcome questionnaire such as reflux symptom score-12 and the consideration of some oral and pharyngeal findings visualized through the mouth opening may help the primary care physician to evaluate the LPR findings at the diagnosis time and throughout treatment. In this review, we provide a practical algorithm of management of LPR for primary care physician or other specialists that cannot perform fiberoptic examination. In this algorithm, physician has to exclude some confounding conditions such as allergy or other causes of pharyngolaryngitis and red flags. Physician may prescribe an empirical treatment based on diet and behavioral changes with or without medication, depending on the complaint severity of the patient. In case of prescription of medication, proton pump inhibitors and alginate have to be considered in association to protect the upper aerodigestive tract mucosa from acid, weakly acid and alkaline pharyngeal reflux events.

Background: In the present study, we assessed the feasibility and success outcomes of voice prosthesis (VP) changes when performed by speech-language pathologist (SLP). Methods: Patients treated with total laryngectomy (TL) from January 2020 to December 2020 were prospectively recruited from our medical center. Patients benefited from tracheoesophageal puncture. The VP changes were performed by the senior SLP and the following data were collected for each VP change: date of placement; change or removal; VP type and size; reason for change or removal; and use of a washer for periprosthetic leakage. A patient-reported outcome questionnaire including 6 items was proposed to patients at each VP change (Appendix 1). Items were assessed with a 10-point Likert-scale. Results: Fifty-two VP changes were performed by the senior SLP during the study period. The mean duration of the SLP consultation, including patient history, examination and VP change procedure was 20 min (range: 15-30). The median prosthesis lifetime was 88 days. The main reasons for VP changes were transprosthetic (N=34; 79%) and periprosthetic (N=7; 21%) leakages, respectively. SLP successfully performed all VP changes. He did not change one VP but used a periprosthetic silastic to stop the periprosthetic leakages. In two cases, SLP needed the surgeon examination to discuss about the following indication: implant mucosa inclusion and autologous fat injection. The patient satisfaction was high according to the speed and the quality of care by the SLP. Conclusion: The delegation of VP change from the otolaryngologist-head and neck sur-geon to the speech-language pathologist (SLP) may be done without significant complications. The delegation of VP change procedure to SLP may be interesting in some rural regions with otolaryngologist shortage.