The infantile subglottic hemangioma can be treated in various ways. The results of the treatment used in the Sophia Children's Hospital, intralesional steroids and intubation (IS + I), are discussed and compared with the results of other current treatment methods: CO2 laser vaporization, submucous resection and intubation alone. A total of 18 infants were treated for subglottic hemangioma in our hospital: ten with IS + I alone, five were first treated with systemic therapy and later with IS + I alone and three with various therapies. IS + I was effective in 14 of the 15 patients, one patient was lost from follow up. The remaining three infants were treated with (combinations of) various therapies, because IS + I failed or was not tried. Two patients were finally cured, one still has a tracheotomy. Of other current therapies, CO2 laser vaporization is reported to be effective. In all 30% of the infants treated in Boston Children's Hospital with CO2 laser needed a tracheotomy. Moreover subglottic stenosis is a serious complication. Submucous resection is often successful. It may be complicated by subglottic stenosis and in some cases, depending on the localization of the hemangioma, it may be contraindicated. Intubation alone is less effective than intubation combined with intralesional steroids. Management of subglottic hemangioma in Sophia Children's Hospital is primarily intralesional steroids and intubation and secondarily submucous resection or tracheotomy. CO2 laser vaporization is seldom applied because of the risk of subglottic stenosis.

Infantile subglottic hemangioma, Intralesional steroids, Intubation, Laser, Resection
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-5876(97)00144-4, hdl.handle.net/1765/67731
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
Department of Otorhinolaryngology

Hoeve, L.J, Küppers, G.L.E, & Verwoerd, C.D.A. (1997). Management of infantile subglottic hemangioma: Laser vaporization, submucous resection, intubation, or intralesional steroids?. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 42(2), 179–186. doi:10.1016/S0165-5876(97)00144-4