Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2008
Does flexible videostroboscopy compare with rigid videostroboscopy in the assessment of the neoglottis? A preliminary report.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Singh A, Kazi R, Venkitaraman R, Kapoor K, Nutting C, Clarke P, Rhys Evans P, Harrington K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rigid and flexible stroboscopy of the neoglottis.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective pilot study set at a tertiary level Head & Neck Unit.
PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four patients recruited. All had undergone a total laryngectomy and were voicing using a Blom-singer valve. All had stroboscopic evaluation of their neoglottis using flexible and rigid endoscopes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A rating form was devised based on six parameters with clear definitions. Secondary measures included ability to tolerate the procedure and completeness of the rating form for each parameter using the two systems.
RESULTS: There was good reliability between individual raters for the assessment of each system based on Spearman Rho correlation. Importantly, two-thirds of the patients were unable to tolerate the rigid videostroboscopy managed flexible videostroboscopy. Correlation between rigid and flexible videostroboscopy was poor for both raters. Flexible systems picked up more mucosal waves and allowed further analysis of the mucosal wave pattern.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that fibreoptic videstroboscopy is as good as rigid videostroboscopy in the assessment of the neoglottis. In fact, flexible videostroboscopy should be routinely used, as it is better tolerated and allows a more detailed analysis of the neoglottis.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective pilot study set at a tertiary level Head & Neck Unit.
PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four patients recruited. All had undergone a total laryngectomy and were voicing using a Blom-singer valve. All had stroboscopic evaluation of their neoglottis using flexible and rigid endoscopes.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A rating form was devised based on six parameters with clear definitions. Secondary measures included ability to tolerate the procedure and completeness of the rating form for each parameter using the two systems.
RESULTS: There was good reliability between individual raters for the assessment of each system based on Spearman Rho correlation. Importantly, two-thirds of the patients were unable to tolerate the rigid videostroboscopy managed flexible videostroboscopy. Correlation between rigid and flexible videostroboscopy was poor for both raters. Flexible systems picked up more mucosal waves and allowed further analysis of the mucosal wave pattern.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that fibreoptic videstroboscopy is as good as rigid videostroboscopy in the assessment of the neoglottis. In fact, flexible videostroboscopy should be routinely used, as it is better tolerated and allows a more detailed analysis of the neoglottis.