• J L Pardal Refoyo and C Muñoz Navarro.
• Servicio de Otorrinolaringología, Hospital Virgen de la Concha, Insalud, Zamora.
• An Otorrinolaringol Ibero Am. 1996 Jan 1;23(2):153-9.

Study ObjectiveTo determinate the validity of videolaryngoscopy on diagnose of laryngeal diseases versus other laryngoscopic methods.DesignRetrospective study covering 2 years (1992 and 1993).Setting267 were the consulting patients because of dysphony. This collective was ranged in 2 groups. Group A included those hoarse individuals in whom was detected a growth, confirmed afterwards by means of direct laryngoscopy, biopsy and pathologists examination of a smear. Group B was formed for dysphonics with no organic changes seen through indirect laryngoscopy.InterventionsAll patients underwent indirect laryngoscopy (laryngeal mirror) and videolaryngoscopy. Patients showing an organic lesion underwent, also, suspension direct laryngoscopy, biopsy and histopathological control (reference's measurement). In all laryngoscopic procedures were determinated presence or absence of laryngeal changes (organic or functional) and the glottic area involved.ResultsIn 156 patients direct laryngoscopies were performed. Organic lesion could be confirmed in 154 cases. The relative sensibility of videolaryngoscopy versus laryngeal mirror account for 0.4 and its negative predictive value for 0.26. The correlation videolaryngoscopy direct laryngoscopy results in 1.ConclusionsVideolaryngoscopy is a method with major sensibility and negative predictive value as indirect laryngoscopy with mirror. But the latter is indispensable in diagnosis of laryngeal organic lesions and must be done prior to microlaryngoscopie direct examination.

13 keywords...

hide…