Amy P Wu1, Lucian Sulica. 1. New York Center for Voice and Swallowing Disorders, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: No accepted standard exists for the diagnosis of vocal fold paresis (VFP). Laryngeal specialists are surveyed to establish expert opinion on diagnostic methodology and criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed at laryngology conferences in fall 2013. Responses were collated anonymously and subjected to cross-tabulated data analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight responses completed by posttraining physicians whose practice focused in laryngology ≥ 75% were analyzed. One (1.7%) relied principally on laryngeal electromyography, one (1.7%) on history, 10 (17%) on laryngoscopy, and 42 (72%) on strobovideolaryngoscopy for diagnosis. Only 12 (21%) performed laryngeal electromyography on > 50% of vocal fold paresis patients. Laryngeal electromyography sensitivity was considered moderate (61 ± 3.7%, σ = 28). Laryngoscopic/stroboscopic findings considered to have the strongest positive predictive value for VFP were slow/sluggish vocal fold motion (75 ± 3.0%, σ = 23), decreased adduction (67 ± 3.5%, σ = 27), decreased abduction (65 ± 3.4%, σ = 26), and decreased vocal fold tone (61 ± 3.5%, σ = 26). Asymmetric mucosal wave amplitude (52 ± 4.2%, σ = 32), asymmetric mucosal wave phase (60 ± 4.1%, σ = 31), hemilaryngeal atrophy (60 ± 4.0%, σ = 31), and asymmetric mucosal wave frequency (49 ± 4.0%, σ = 30) generated greatest disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed expert laryngologists diagnose vocal fold paresis predominantly on stroboscopic examination. Gross motion abnormalities had the highest positive predictive value. Laryngeal electromyography was infrequently used to assess for vocal fold paresis.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: No accepted standard exists for the diagnosis of vocal fold paresis (VFP). Laryngeal specialists are surveyed to establish expert opinion on diagnostic methodology and criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed at laryngology conferences in fall 2013. Responses were collated anonymously and subjected to cross-tabulated data analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight responses completed by posttraining physicians whose practice focused in laryngology ≥ 75% were analyzed. One (1.7%) relied principally on laryngeal electromyography, one (1.7%) on history, 10 (17%) on laryngoscopy, and 42 (72%) on strobovideolaryngoscopy for diagnosis. Only 12 (21%) performed laryngeal electromyography on > 50% of vocal fold paresis patients. Laryngeal electromyography sensitivity was considered moderate (61 ± 3.7%, σ = 28). Laryngoscopic/stroboscopic findings considered to have the strongest positive predictive value for VFP were slow/sluggish vocal fold motion (75 ± 3.0%, σ = 23), decreased adduction (67 ± 3.5%, σ = 27), decreased abduction (65 ± 3.4%, σ = 26), and decreased vocal fold tone (61 ± 3.5%, σ = 26). Asymmetric mucosal wave amplitude (52 ± 4.2%, σ = 32), asymmetric mucosal wave phase (60 ± 4.1%, σ = 31), hemilaryngeal atrophy (60 ± 4.0%, σ = 31), and asymmetric mucosal wave frequency (49 ± 4.0%, σ = 30) generated greatest disagreement. CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed expert laryngologists diagnose vocal fold paresis predominantly on stroboscopic examination. Gross motion abnormalities had the highest positive predictive value. Laryngeal electromyography was infrequently used to assess for vocal fold paresis.