The Investigation of Hyaluronic Acid (The Chaeum Premium No.2<sup>®</sup>) to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety for Injection Laryngoplasty in Unilateral Vocal Cord Paralysis: A Single Center, Phase II Trial

Park, JunHo; Kim, Min-Su

doi:2024.35.1.30

J Korean Soc Laryngol Phoniatr Logop > Volume 35(1); 2024 > Article

Park and Kim: The Investigation of Hyaluronic Acid (The Chaeum Premium No.2®) to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety for Injection Laryngoplasty in Unilateral Vocal Cord Paralysis: A Single Center, Phase II Trial

Original Article

J Korean Soc Laryngol Phoniatr Logop 2024; 35(1): 30-34.

Published online: April 30, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22469/jkslp.2024.35.1.30

The Investigation of Hyaluronic Acid (The Chaeum Premium No.2^®) to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety for Injection Laryngoplasty in Unilateral Vocal Cord Paralysis: A Single Center, Phase II Trial

JunHo Park

, Min-Su Kim

Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea

Corresponding Author Min-Su Kim, MD, PhD Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, 59 Yatap-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13496, Korea Tel +82-31-780-4864 Fax +82-31-780-3449 E-mail abraxas8109@gmail.com

Received April 2, 2024 Revised April 12, 2024 Accepted April 15, 2024

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background and Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of hyaluronic acid (HA) (The Chaeum Premium No.2^®) for injection laryngoplasty (IL) in unilateral vocal cord paralysis (UVCP) patients.

Materials and Method

This clinical trial has been registered with the clinical research information service of the Republic of Korea (No. KCT0007597). Ten patients with UVCP were enrolled. Auditory-perceptual evaluation, acoustic analysis, aerodynamic analysis, electroglottography, laryngoscopy, and voice handicap index (VHI)-30 were assessed before injection, at 1, 3, and 6 months after injection.

Results

All auditory-perceptual parameters gradually showed statistically significant improvements at 1, 3, and 6 months after injection. Acoustic, aerodynamic parameters, electroglottography, and VHI-30 showed gradual improvements at 1 and 3 months after injection. Then, they showed slight deterioration 6 months after injection. There were no adverse effects in all patients.

Conclusion

IL using HA is an effective and safe treatment for UVCP patients.

Key words: Vocal cord paralysis; Hyaluronic acid; Laryngoplasty; Clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Unilateral vocal cord paralysis (UVCP) usually results in poor quality of life with symptoms such as hoarseness, reduced coughing strength, aspiration, and subsequent pneumonia. Several approaches, including laryngeal framework surgery, re-innervation surgery, and injection laryngoplasty (IL), have been suggested as potential treatments for addressing UVCP [1].

Numerous materials have been introduced for IL in UVCP patients since the early 1990s. However, earlier IL materials such as paraffin and polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon^®) have gradually been phased out given the evidence of foreign body reactions and high extrusion rates. Recently, IL materials are typically described according to their duration as temporary and long-lasting. Hyaluronic acid (HA), collagen, and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) are temporary materials. Long-acting materials include calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA), fat, and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) microspheres in bovine collagen. CMC and CaHA are currently Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved materials for IL [2].

The ideal material for IL should be biocompatible, easily injectable with minimal preparation, and possess a durability that provides patients with a reasonable period of benefit before undergoing reabsorption [3]. HA, serving as a ubiquitous element in the extracellular matrix, is a polysaccharide naturally found in the extracellular matrix of human cells and is plentiful in the lamina propria of the vocal cord. Its chemical molecular structure is simple and consistent across various species, spanning from humans to bacteria. Its non-immunogenic nature is attributed to the absence of amino acids [4]. It has very low tissue reactivity and promotes tissue repair and regeneration in vocal cords by providing synthetic building blocks for the extracellular matrix [2,5]. It was initially presented by Hertegård et al. [6] in 2002 as an injection material for glottic insufficiency resulting from various causes, including UVCP. Several clinical studies have affirmed the safety and effectiveness of HA in UVCP patients [3,7-16]. Therefore, HA is the most used material. However, it is not currently FDA-approved for IL. This study was designed as a preliminary study for approval from the Korean FDA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of HA for IL in UVCP patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Trial design and participants

This trial was conducted at two institutions from March 2023 to February 2024. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards (No. CHAMC-2022-02-032-004). This clinical trial was approved by the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (Approval No. 1353) and registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (No. KCT0007597) as international clinical trials registry platform of Korea.

The patients’ inclusion criteria were: 1) adult patients (aged 19 and above) with complaints of breathy or aspiration phonation, where UVCP is observed during laryngoscopy, necessitating vocal fold injection; 2) individuals capable of reading and understanding the guidelines related to the HA’s safety and efficacy and able to complete relevant questionnaires; 3) those who have listened to a detailed explanation of the clinical trial, fully understood it, voluntarily decided to participate, and provided written consent on the informed consent form; and 4) individuals who can adhere to the procedures of the clinical trial and comply with visit schedules. The exclusion criteria were: 1) patients with compromised or suspected compromised immunity; 2) individuals with a history of anaphylaxis, severe complex allergic reactions, or adverse reactions to local anesthetics and HA; 3) patients with clinically significant disorders affecting the cardiovascular, digestive, respiratory, endocrine, or central nervous systems; 4) pregnant or lactating women; 5) children; 6) those unwilling to participate in the study; and 7) patients with interrupting lesions involving the vocal folds, which are the injection route for HA, as observed in the screening neck CT conducted for differential diagnosis of UVCP.

Ten patients with UVCP were initially enrolled, and none of them was lost during the follow-ups. All patients were informed of treatment details and possible side effects and provided written consent to undergo treatment and present regularly for follow-up examinations.

IL technique (trans-cricothyroid membrane approach)

The participants underwent percutaneous IL in the outpatient clinic under local anesthesia. Prior to the injection, a 10% xylocaine spray was soaked in nasal packing gauzes to anesthetize the fiberoptic laryngoscope’s nasal pathway. The packing gauze was inserted into both nasal cavities. Next, a 10% xylocaine spray was applied to the oropharynx. The patients were prompted to cough to facilitate the dispersion of the anesthetic solution throughout the larynx. Additional local anesthesia was administered subcutaneously around the cricothyroid membrane by an aseptic injection of 2% lidocaine. After finishing local anesthesia, HA (The Chaeum Premium No.2^®, ACROSS CO., Ltd, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea) was percutaneously injected through the cricothyroid membrane using a 25-gauge needle. Once the needle’s location in the vocal fold was confirmed by a fiberoptic laryngoscope, the operator (M-S. K) began to inject HA and stopped IL when the paralyzed vocal cord sufficiently was medialized. After IL, they were examined for any adverse reactions for 30 minutes.

Follow-up and the trial’s endpoints

Patients followed up at 1, 3, and 6 months after IL. Auditoryperceptual evaluation, acoustic analysis, aerodynamic analysis, electroglottography, laryngoscopy, and voice handicap index (VHI)-30 were assessed before IL and 1, 3, and 6 months after IL. This trial’s primary endpoint was to assess its efficacy using the perceptual parameter grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, and strain (GRBAS) scale. The secondary endpoints were to evaluate its effectiveness with the use of different parameters such as the acoustic parameter, electroglottography parameter, aerodynamic parameter, and VHI.

Statistical analysis

The Friedman test was used to analyze changes in the measured variables over time. p<0.05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Median volume of injected HA was 1.05 mL (range 0.7 to 1.6 mL). All auditory-perceptual parameters of the GRBAS scale showed statistically significant improvements at 1, 3, and 6 months after IL. All acoustic parameters of Jitter, Shimmer, noise-to-harmonic ratio (NHR), and cepstral peak prominence (CPP) showed gradual improvements at 1 and 3 months after IL. Then they showed slight deterioration at 6 months after IL. These changes were not statistically significant in Jitter, Shimmer, and NHR, but statistically significant in CPP. Aerodynamic parameters showed similar patterns. Maximum phonation time (MPT) and mean airflow rate (MFR) showed gradual improvements at 1 and 3 months after IL, and then they showed slight deterioration at 6 months after IL. They were statistically significant. The closed quotient in electroglottography showed gradual improvements at 1 and 3 months after IL, and then it showed slight deterioration at 6 months after IL. This trend was not statistically significant. VHI-30 showed statistically significant improvements at 1 and 3 months after IL. Then it showed statistically significant deterioration at 6 months after IL (Table 2). There were no adverse effects in all patients during follow-up periods.

DISCUSSION

All patients with UVCP showed persistent improvements after IL using HA for 6 months without any adverse effects. GRBAS showed significantly gradual improvement until 6 months after IL. Acoustic analysis, aerodynamic analysis, electroglottography, and VHI-30 showed improvement after IL compared to those before IL. However, the parameters gradually improved until 3 months after IL but slightly worsened by 6 months after IL. Acoustic parameters can be judged to represent the objective voice quality of patients with UVCP [17-19]. Among the acoustic parameters, CPP was the only statistically significant parameter. This is consistent with the recent studies that present CPP as an important indicator for UVCP [2,5,20]. Aerodynamic parameters are measures of objective voice intensity in patients with UVCP. Like acoustical parameters, aerodynamic parameters showed similar trends according to the timing after IL. This finding tended to be precisely consistent with the closed quotient (the ratio between the closed glottal phase duration and the fundamental period) and the VHI-30 (self-assessment questionnaire that evaluates the level of handicap caused by hoarseness) [21,22]. These results demonstrated that subjective satisfaction, voice quality, and intensity peak around 3 months after IL, which is the estimated half-life of HA in vocalis muscles.

Some studies showed similar results for the peak of the IL effect to our results. Wen et al.’s [12] study evaluated MPT and VHI-10 at 1, 3, and 6 months posttreatment. They gradually improved until 3 months after IL but slightly worsened by 6 months after IL. Lee et al. [23] reported that many parameters improved 3 months after IL but slightly worsened by 6 months after IL in 19 patients with permanent UVCP after thyroidectomy. The Upton’s study to examine the use of HA for IL demonstrated that 12 patients’ voice outcome measures trended back toward baseline at 4 months, indicating that the beneficial effects of HA are temporary [13]. Interestingly, there was a study comparing small and large particle-size HA in IL for UVCP. Restylane^® (small particle-size HA) and Perlane^® (large particlesize HA) were two used products with respective particle sizes of 547±280 µm/mL and 1024±547 µm/mL. The small particlesize HA group starts to show VHI’s deterioration by 3 months, whereas the large particle-size HA group demonstrates continued VHI’s improvement right up to 6 months [16]. This study’s used HA (The Chaeum Premium No.2^®)’s particle size was 473± 242 µm/mL [24]. It is a smaller particle-size HA than Restylane^®, which is consistent with the result that starts to show VHI’s deterioration by 3 months after IL.

The duration of HA is generally believed to be 3–6 months [2,7,25]. However, some studies showed that its clinical benefits may persist for up to 24 months. Pei et al. [11] evaluated voice analysis baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months after IL with HA. Most measurements showed immediate improvements after HA injection, with a persisting effect at the 3 or 6 months follow-up. Halderman’s research reported the average patient’s self-reported length of benefit to be 12.2 weeks (range 0–52 weeks) [3]. In the study by Bertroche, the patient-defined longevity of HA for IL in patients with UVCP or vocal cord atrophy was investigated. Longevity was defined as the time between IL and the date that a patient first noted subjective deterioration of their voice. Fifty-nine patients revealed a mean longevity of 10.6 months (95% confidence interval: 9.1–12.0 months) [10]. Miaśkiewicz et al. [7] showed that GRBAS and acoustic parameters improved at 6, 12, and 24 months after IL under general anesthesia.

In this study, no specific complications were observed after IL. A recent systematic review for IL with HA revealed that the overall number of reported complications in the included studies was low (none to 7.8%). Complications are mostly mild such as edema and/or inflammation. Complications can be managed with antibiotics and corticosteroids [5]. This study had several limitations. First, the number of study subjects was small (n=10), which means that our conclusion may not be reliable. Second, we did not test various types of HA in terms of particle size, crosslinking rate, gel type, concentration, viscosity, and elasticity. In the future, prospective studies with a larger sample size, a longer follow-up period, and various types of HA are necessary to further determine the best efficacy and safety of HA for IL in UVCP patients.

CONCLUSION

HA is an effective and safe material in IL for patients with UVCP. The effect of HA may peak around 3 months after IL and then gradually decrease.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

None

NOTES

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by the “Young Investigator Award (YIA)” of the Korean Society of Laryngology, Phoniatrics, and Logopedics and Hugel, Inc.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contribution

Conceptualization: Min-Su Kim. Data curation: JunHo Park. Formal analysis: JunHo Park, Min-Su Kim. Funding acquisition: Min-Su Kim. Investigation: JunHo Park, Min-Su Kim. Methodology: JunHo Park, Min-Su Kim. Project administration: Min-Su Kim. Resources: Min-Su Kim. Software: JunHo Park, Min-Su Kim. Supervision: Min-Su Kim. Validation: JunHo Park, Min-Su Kim. Visualization: JunHo Park, Min-Su Kim. Writing—original draft: Min-Su Kim. Writing—review & editing: JunHo Park, Min-Su Kim. Approval of final manuscript: JunHo Park, Min-Su Kim.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics (n=10)

Variable	Value
Age (yr)	52.7±13.0
Sex
Male	6 (60)
Female	4 (40)
Etiology
Thyroid operation	6 (60)
Idiopathic	2 (20)
Cervical spine operation	1 (10)
Viral meningitis	1 (10)

Data are presented as mean±standard deviation or n (%).

Table 2.

Analysis of various parameters

	Before	1 month	3 months	6 months	p-value
Perceptual
G	1.5±0.8	1.1±0.5	0.7±0.5	0.6±0.6	0.006
R	1.4±0.7	1.0±0.5	0.6±0.5	0.5±0.5	0.002
B	1.5±0.8	1.0±0.6	0.6±0.5	0.6±0.6	0.005
A	1.3±0.9	0.4±0.6	0.3±0.4	0.3±0.4	0.003
S	1.2±0.7	0.8±0.6	0.4±0.5	0.3±0.4	<0.001
Acoustic
Jitter	2.0±1.8	1.3±1.3	1.1±0.9	1.4±2.0	0.188
Shimmer	6.2±4.8	5.7±4.2	3.5±1.4	4.9±5.0	0.222
NHR	0.6±1.2	0.3±0.6	0.1±0.0	0.2±0.1	0.306
CPP	5.4±1.0	6.1±0.8	6.0±0.9	5.1±0.7	0.008
Aerodynamic
MPT	11.7±8.3	13.4±4.3	16.6±7.3	15.1±5.6	0.026
MFR	0.3±0.3	0.2±0.2	0.1±0.1	0.4±0.4	0.022
Closed quotient	40.3±10.4	47.5±5.7	48.9±8.5	44.7±5.5	0.107
VHI-30	67.4±33.3	45.3±29.7	39.6±24.5	41.0±31.2	0.006

G, grade; R, roughness; B, breathiness; A, asthenia; S, strain; NHR, noise harmonic ratio; CPP, cepstral peak prominence; MPT, maximum phonation time; MFR, mean airflow rate; VHI, voice handicap index

REFERENCES

1. Wang CC, Wu SH, Tu YK, Lin WJ, Liu SA. Hyaluronic acid injection laryngoplasty for unilateral vocal fold paralysis-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cells 2020;9(11):2417.

2. Korean Society of Laryngology, Phoniatrics and Logopedics Guideline Task Force, Ryu CH, Kwon TK, Kim H, Kim HS, Park IS, Woo JH, et al. Guidelines for the management of unilateral vocal fold paralysis from the Korean Society of Laryngology, Phoniatrics and Logopedics. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2020;13(4):340-60.

3. Halderman AA, Bryson PC, Benninger MS, Chota R. Safety and length of benefit of restylane for office-based injection medialization-a retrospective review of one institution’s experience. J Voice 2014;28(5):631-5.

4. Chhetri DK, Mendelsohn AH. Hyaluronic acid for the treatment of vocal fold scars. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;18(6):498-502.

5. Švejdová A, Dršata J, Mejzlík J, Homoláč M, Krtičková J, Šatanková J, et al. Injection laryngoplasty with hyaluronic acid for glottal insufficiency in unilateral vocal fold paralysis: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022;279(11):5071-9.

6. Hertegård S, Hallén L, Laurent C, Lindström E, Olofsson K, Testad P, et al. Cross-linked hyaluronan used as augmentation substance for treatment of glottal insufficiency: safety aspects and vocal fold function. Laryngoscope 2002;112(12):2211-9.

7. Miaśkiewicz B, Panasiewicz A, Nikiel K, Włodarczyk E, Gos E, Szkiełkowska A. Comparison of 24-month voice outcomes after injection laryngoplasty with calcium hydroxylapatite or hyaluronic acid in patients with unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Am J Otolaryngol 2022;43(1):103207.

8. Kang MG, Seo HG, Chung EJ, Lee HH, Yun SJ, Keam B, et al. Effects of percutaneous injection laryngoplasty on voice and swallowing problems in cancer-related unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2021;6(4):800-6.

9. Pei YC, Chuang HF, Wong AMK, Fang TJ. Voice aerodynamics following office-based hyaluronate injection laryngoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2019;44(4):594-602.

10. Bertroche JT, Radder M, Kallogjeri D, Paniello RC, Bradley JP. Patient-defined duration of benefit from juvederm (hyaluronic acid) used in injection laryngoplasty. Laryngoscope 2019;129(12):2744-7.

11. Pei YC, Fang TJ, Hsin LJ, Li HY, Wong AM. Early hyaluronate injection improves quality of life but not neural recovery in unilateral vocal fold paralysis: an open-label randomized controlled study. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2015;33(2):121-30.

12. Wen MH, Cheng PW, Liao LJ, Chou HW, Wang CT. Treatment outcomes of injection laryngoplasty using cross-linked porcine collagen and hyaluronic acid. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;149(6):900-6.

13. Upton DC, Johnson M, Zelazny SK, Dailey SH. Prospective evaluation of office-based injection laryngoplasty with hyaluronic acid gel. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2013;122(9):541-6.

14. Oguz H, Demirci M, Arslan N, Arslan E. Long-term voice results of injection with hyaluronic acid-dextranomere in unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Acta Otolaryngol 2013;133(5):513-7.

15. Reiter R, Brosch S. Laryngoplasty with hyaluronic acid in patients with unilateral vocal fold paralysis. J Voice 2012;26(6):785-91.

16. Lau DP, Lee GA, Wong SM, Lim VP, Chan YH, Tan NG, et al. Injection laryngoplasty with hyaluronic acid for unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Randomized controlled trial comparing two different particle sizes. J Voice 2010;24(1):113-8.

17. Lovato A, Barillari MR, Giacomelli L, Gamberini L, de Filippis C. Predicting the outcome of unilateral vocal fold paralysis: a multivariate discriminating model including grade of dysphonia, jitter, shimmer, and voice handicap index-10. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2019;128(5):447-52.

18. Spector BC, Netterville JL, Billante C, Clary J, Reinisch L, Smith TL. Quality-of-life assessment in patients with unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;125(3):176-82.

19. White M, Meenan K, Patel T, Jaworek A, Sataloff RT. Laboratory evaluation of vocal fold paralysis and paresis. J Voice 2017;31(2):168-74.

20. Balasubramanium RK, Bhat JS, Fahim S 3rd, Raju R 3rd. Cepstral analysis of voice in unilateral adductor vocal fold palsy. J Voice 2011;25(3):326-9.

21. Valentino WL, Park J, Alnouri G, Gracely EJ, Tami A, Vance D, et al. Diagnostic value of acoustic and aerodynamic measurements in vocal fold movement disorders and their correlation with laryngeal electromyography and voice handicap index. J Voice 2021;35(3):497.e1-4.

22. Guzmán M, Castro C, Madrid S, Olavarria C, Leiva M, Muñoz D, et al. Air pressure and contact quotient measures during different semioccluded postures in subjects with different voice conditions. J Voice 2016;30(6):759.e1-10.

23. Lee SW, Kim JW, Chung CH, Mok JO, Shim SS, Koh YW, et al. Utility of injection laryngoplasty in the management of post-thyroidectomy vocal cord paralysis. Thyroid 2010;20(5):513-7.

24. Lee W, Hwang SG, Oh W, Kim CY, Lee JL, Yang EJ. Practical guidelines for hyaluronic acid soft-tissue filler use in facial rejuvenation. Dermatol Surg 2020;46(1):41-9.

25. Mallur PS, Rosen CA. Vocal fold injection: review of indications, techniques, and materials for augmentation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2010;3(4):177-82.