The Laryngoscope · 2007
Stroboscopy versus high-speed glottography: a comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Olthoff Arno, Woywod Christina, Kruse Eberhard
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and to compare the diagnostic value of videostroboscopy (VS) and high-speed glottography (HGG) in dysphonic patients.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, prospective study.
METHODS: A total of 162 patients underwent indirect laryngoscopy using both methods (VS and HGG). The resulting 324 films were evaluated by two professionals (laryngologists, MDs) using a standardized protocol containing established criteria to classify vocal fold vibratory movement qualities.
RESULTS: The rating "not assessable" was mentioned significantly more often in VS than in HGG (P < .001). In HGG, methodologic failures were less frequent, and the length of investigation was shorter. Even if the agreement between the two raters was higher in HGG (54%) compared with VS (42%), both percentage values show a low accordance in diagnostic findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the method used (VS or HGG), perceptive evaluations of vibratory movements of vocal folds revealed a higher variability than assumed. This result supports the need for objective methods to analyze vocal fold vibratory movements. Therefore, real-time imaging of vocal fold vibratory movements using HGG will be necessary.
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, prospective study.
METHODS: A total of 162 patients underwent indirect laryngoscopy using both methods (VS and HGG). The resulting 324 films were evaluated by two professionals (laryngologists, MDs) using a standardized protocol containing established criteria to classify vocal fold vibratory movement qualities.
RESULTS: The rating "not assessable" was mentioned significantly more often in VS than in HGG (P < .001). In HGG, methodologic failures were less frequent, and the length of investigation was shorter. Even if the agreement between the two raters was higher in HGG (54%) compared with VS (42%), both percentage values show a low accordance in diagnostic findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the method used (VS or HGG), perceptive evaluations of vibratory movements of vocal folds revealed a higher variability than assumed. This result supports the need for objective methods to analyze vocal fold vibratory movements. Therefore, real-time imaging of vocal fold vibratory movements using HGG will be necessary.