Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Case report
Full Version
Salvage Supracricoid Partial Laryngectomy with Cricohyoidoepiglottopexy for Radiorecurrent Laryngeal Carcinoma: A Case Report
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Meghana Matta Raja,
Junior Resident, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Pimpri, Pune-411018, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: meghana.mr30@gmail.com
Recurrent or residual Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (LSCC) after chemoradiotherapy often requires surgical salvage. Salvage total laryngectomy is effective but results in significant long-term functional loss. In selected cases without cartilage invasion, supracricoid laryngectomy with Cricohyoidoepiglottopexy (CHEP) can achieve oncologic clearance while preserving the larynx and reducing aspiration-related morbidity. A 77-year-old male presented with progressive hoarseness for one month. He had been treated three years previously with radiotherapy (25/35 planned cycles; defaulter) and chemotherapy (6 cycles) for LSCC. A Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) of skull base to thorax showed an enhancing polypoidal lesion involving the anterior 2/3rd of the right true vocal cord (posterior 1/3rd free), no thyroid cartilage, arytenoid, or paraglottic space involvement, and no supraglottic/subglottic extension. No significant cervical lymphadenopathy was noted. Biopsy revealed sarcomatoid carcinoma with spindle cell morphology. The patient underwent supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy. Histopathology confirmed spindle cell squamous carcinoma with all margins free of tumour. Tumour size was 0.5×0.5×0.3 cm with staging pT1a pNx pMx. Supra cricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy is an effective organ-preserving option in selected cases of radiorecurrent laryngeal carcinoma without cartilage invasion, helping to avoid total laryngectomy while maintaining oncological safety.
Organ preserving, Spindle cell squamous carcinoma, Surgical salvage, Total laryngectomy avoidance
A 77-year-old male presented with progressive hoarseness for one month. He was a known case of squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx and had previously undergone definitive oncological management in the form of radiotherapy (25 fractions) and chemotherapy (6 cycles). It was noted that the patient was a defaulter and had received only 25 fractions of radiotherapy, although 35 fractions were planned. Radiotherapy was completed three years ago. In view of the new-onset voice change in a post-treatment patient, recurrence/residual disease was suspected.
On endoscopic examination, a growth involving the anterior 2/3rd of the right true vocal cord (posterior 1/3rd free) was identified (Table/Fig 1). Bilateral vocal cord mobility was present.
A CECT scan of the skull base to thorax demonstrated an inhomogeneously enhancing polypoidal soft-tissue lesion within the larynx, involving the anterior portion of the right true vocal cords, consistent with recurrent laryngeal neoplasm. Axial section of larynx showed a lesion over the right true vocal cord involving the anterior 2/3rd, with the posterior 1/3rd being free (Table/Fig 2a),(Table/Fig 2b). The soft-tissue measured approximately 11.8×9.2 mm. There was no involvement of thyroid cartilage, arytenoids, or paraglottic space. No supraglottic or subglottic extension was noted (Table/Fig 3). Importantly, no significant cervical lymphadenopathy was reported, and there was no imaging evidence of gross cartilage destruction. The clinical staging was cT1a Nx M0.
Histopathological examination of tissue obtained from the lesion over the right true vocal cords demonstrated sarcomatoid carcinoma with spindle cell morphology (Table/Fig 4).
Given the localised nature of the disease involving the right true vocal cords, the absence of radiological thyroid cartilage invasion, and the lack of clinically significant nodal disease, a salvage organ preservation strategy was planned. The patient underwent supracricoid laryngectomy with CHEP under general anaesthesia.
Intraoperatively, reconstruction sutures were placed, including crico-arytenoid stitch, pyriform sinus stitch, and crico-hyoid-epiglottic stitch (Table/Fig 5).
All resected surgical margins were free of tumour. The tumour was described as unifocal, located in the right larynx/glottis, measuring 0.5×0.5×0.3 cm (Table/Fig 6). The specimen was substantially smaller than the imaging dimensions because of the post-biopsy status.
The post-treatment pathological staging was pT1a pNx pMx (AJCC 8th edition).
Histopathological evaluation of the primary resection specimen revealed spindle cell squamous carcinoma (Table/Fig 7).
Postoperative Video Directed Laryngoscopy (VDL) and Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation Of Swallowing (FEES) was done three months later. VDL showed an adequate glottic chink with no aspiration (Table/Fig 8). FEES showed minimal aspiration at three months, which resolved on the 6-month follow-up.
Carcinoma of the larynx is one of the most common head and neck malignancies. Treatment of LSCC should be individualised, considering tumour extension, patient fitness, and institutional expertise. Open partial horizontal laryngectomy offers satisfactory oncologic and functional outcomes, provided that patient selection is performed carefully. Non surgical treatment, although associated with poorer locoregional control, optimises outcomes in high nodal burden (1).
In the present case, new-onset voice change in a post-treatment laryngeal cancer patient is a well-recognised warning symptom for residual or recurrent disease, warranting reassessment. In such recurrent settings, available salvage management options include Open Partial Laryngectomy (OPL), total laryngectomy, Transoral Laser Microsurgery (TLM), cordectomy for selected early lesions, and re-irradiation, particularly when recurrence occurs after a longer interval (>3 years) (2).
Since the patient defaulted after receiving only 25 of the planned 35 fractions of radiotherapy, the present lesion may represent persistent or residual disease rather than a true late recurrence. Incomplete radiotherapy may adversely affect local disease control and complicate interpretation of treatment failure patterns. Surgical salvage represents the primary curative option when recurrent disease is resectable (3).
Sarcomatoid (spindle cell) carcinoma represents an uncommon aggressive variant characterised by biphasic epithelial and mesenchymal differentiation. These tumours are associated with aggressive biological behaviour, increased recurrence tendency and poorer prognosis compared with conventional squamous cell carcinoma. Some studies suggest relative resistance to radiotherapy, thereby increasing the importance of surgical salvage in localised disease (4),(5).
Salvage surgery following radiotherapy remains technically challenging because irradiated tissues exhibit fibrosis, poor vascularity, and impaired wound healing. In addition, recurrent laryngeal carcinomas may demonstrate occult multifocal disease, increasing the risk of underestimation of tumour extent. Previously irradiated patients are also at higher risk for postoperative complications including aspiration, pharyngocutaneous fistula formation, wound breakdown, chondronecrosis, prolonged dysphagia, and long-term functional impairment. Therefore, careful patient selection and comprehensive postoperative rehabilitation are essential when considering organ-preserving salvage procedures (6).
A case report by Nakayama M et al., where a 65-year-old man underwent salvage supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy. The right recurrent hemilarynx was successfully resected. After cricohyoidoepiglottopexy, the right lobe of the thyroid gland was repositioned to overlap and reinforce the pexis gap and muscle closure. Four years after supracricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy, the patient’s recovery was favourable, and he had satisfactory laryngeal function (7).
Eleven out of 270 papers were analysed, and a total of 251 cases were included. The larynx preservation rate was 85.2%, the decannulation rate was 92.1%, and swallowing recovery was 96.5% (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) dependence and the aspiration pneumonia rate were 3.5 and 6.4%, respectively) (8).
In a Spanish study by Luna-Ortiz K et al., a 68-year-old patient with recurrent glottic squamous cell carcinoma (T1aN0) was treated with partial laryngectomy. Supra cricoid partial laryngectomy with cricohyoidoepiglottopexy was performed with a satisfactory postoperative evolution with tracheostomy decannulation at day 7. Physiological phonation and removal of the nasogastric tube were accomplished at day 15, as well as reinitiation of oral feeding. Hence, a functional evaluation with no need of permanent tracheostomy, and a close to normal biopsicosocial integration after surgery is possible (9).
Salvage decision-making depends mainly on anatomic extent and margin feasibility. It is suitable only in selected patients with localised disease, preserved cricoarytenoid unit function, absence of extensive cartilage invasion, and adequate pulmonary and swallowing reserve. In the present case, preserved arytenoid mobility, absence of cartilage involvement, and localised glottic disease favored organ preservation surgery. Hence, preservation must be balanced against oncologic clearance (7),(8).
New-onset hoarseness after chemoradiotherapy should prompt early reassessment. Careful clinical and radiologic restaging can identify localised recurrence or residual disease. Salvage Supracricoid partial laryngectomy can provide oncologic clearance while preserving the larynx. There’s a need for meticulous surgical and pathological assessment.
Authors’ contribution: All authors have reviewed the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. SG: Concept and design; MMR: Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; MSB: Drafting of the manuscript; GDM, ASM: Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2026/87893.24323
Date of Submission: Feb 03, 2026
Date of Peer Review: Apr 17, 2026
Date of Acceptance: May 21, 2026
Date of Publishing: Sep 01, 2026
Author declaration:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 03, 2026
• Manual Googling: May 14, 2026
• iThenticate Software: May 18, 2026 (3%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 7
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com