Skip to main content

Symptom Control Effectiveness of Superior Laryngeal Nerve Block in Patients with Chronic Cough: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (Q2)
Published
18 August 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Do Hyun Kim, Hye Bin Kim, David W Jang, Se Hwan Hwang
PMID
42654480
DOI
10.3390/medicina62081583

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Otorhinolaryngology (top studies of the week, 30 August 2026): Systematic review/meta‑analysis of SLN block for chronic cough

Abstract

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of superior laryngeal nerve block (SLB) in the management of chronic cough associated with refractory laryngeal hypersensitivity. Materials and Methods: Studies assessing Cough Severity Index (CSI) changes before and after SLB or comparing SLB with sham interventions were included. Pooled analyses evaluated CSI reduction, subjective improvement, and adverse events. Results: Twelve studies involving 759 patients were analyzed. SLB significantly reduced CSI, and the improvement was maintained within the available follow-up period, with no difference between short-term (<100 days) and long-term (>100 days) follow-up (p = 0.5145). Most protocols used initial unilateral SLB with contralateral injection for non-responders, resulting in more than two blocks per patient on average. Subjective improvement occurred in 74%, with ≥50% CSI reduction in 55% and satisfactory response after a single block in 17%. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported, although the available evidence was insufficient to exclude rare or delayed complications. Conclusions: SLB was associated with improvement in refractory chronic cough in predominantly uncontrolled observational studies. Although one small placebo-controlled trial suggested benefit over saline injection, the current evidence remains insufficient to establish definitive efficacy, and adequately powered placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm its efficacy and durability.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.