Surgical management of Eagle syndrome: A 17-year experience with open and transoral robotic styloidectomy

• Published in: American journal of otolaryngology Vol. 41; no. 2; p. 102324
• Main Authors: Fitzpatrick, Thomas H., Lovin, Benjamin D., Magister, Marcus J., Waltonen, Joshua D., Browne, J. Dale, Sullivan, Christopher A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.03.2020; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Algorithms; Blood; Carotid arteries; Complications; Demographics; Endoscopy; Health care facilities; Health services; Hypotheses; Neck pain; Patients; Robotic surgery; Throat surgery
• ISSN: 0196-0709; 1532-818X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2019.102324

Eagle Syndrome (ES) is a rare disorder that can present with symptoms ranging from globus sensation to otalgia that is attributed to an elongated styloid process and/or calcified stylohyoid ligament. No standardized treatment algorithm exists, and although various surgical approaches have been described, data on the use of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in this population is limited. To investigate the utility of TORS in the treatment of ES, a retrospective review in 19 ES patients was carried out at a single academic, tertiary medical center between 2000 and 2017. Nineteen patients underwent twenty-one styloid resections: 6 performed via TORS and 15 via transcervical approach. Across all patients, 90% reported some degree of lasting improvement in symptoms while 55% reported significant improvement. When TORS was compared to transcervical resection, there was no difference in the subjective rate of “meaningful” (83 vs. 57%) versus rate of “non-meaningful” symptom improvement (17 vs. 43%) (p = 0.35). There was a trend towards less estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and post-operative length of stay (LOS) with TORS versus transcervical cases (9.2 mL vs. 30.0 mL, 98 vs. 156 min, and 0.7 vs. 1.2 days); however, these did not reach statistical significance (p = .11, 0.13, and 0.42, respectively). Three patients experienced complications associated with an open approach, as compared to none with TORS. In select patients, TORS styloidectomy is a reasonable surgical alternative to traditional transoral and transcervical techniques as it provides similar symptom improvement, and reduced length of stay, blood loss, and operative time. •For surgical patients, 90% saw improvement, 55% significant improvement.•Both TORS and transcervical styloidectomy showed similar symptomatic improvement.•There was a trend towards less EBL, LOS, and Op Time for TORS vs. transcervical.