Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:36:45.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Suspension microlaryngoscopic surgery and indirect microlaryngostroboscopic surgery for benign lesions of the vocal folds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

F. G. Dikkers  and
A. M. Sulter
F. G. Dikkers*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
A. M. Sulter
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
*
Dr Frederik G. Dikkers, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Groningen, Oostersingel 59, 9713 EZ Groningen, The Netherlands. Fax: 31–50–696726
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A prospective study was designed to compare the effects on voice capacities after either suspension microlaryngoscopic surgery or indirect microlaryngostroboscopic surgery. Patients where the clinical diagnosis 'dysphonia due to a benign lesion of the vocal fold' was made, and who could be operated in either way, entered the study. Post-operative voice evaluation was performed on 21 patients after suspension microlaryngoscopic or indirect microlaryngostroboscopic surgery. The long-term voice results following indirect microlaryngostroboscopic surgery and suspension microlaryngoscopic surgery demonstrate a statistically significant improvement for the maximum intensity, maximum dynamic intensity range, dynamic intensity range at habitual speaking pitch, and melodic pitch range. In selected cases indirect microlaryngostroboscopic surgery offers a very good functional result.

Keywords

Vocal foldsLaryngoscopyLaryngeal diseases
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 108 , Issue 12 , December 1994 , pp. 1064 - 1067
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This paper was presented at the Second International Symposium on Phonosurgery, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 16–18, 1992.

References

Brodnitz, F. S. (1963) Goals, results and limitations of vocal rehabilitation. Archives of Otolaryngology 77: 148–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damsté, P. H. (1970) The phonetogram. Practica Otorhinolaryngologica 32: 185–187.Google Scholar
Dikkers, F. G., Schutte, H. K. (1991) Benign lesions of the vocal folds: uniformity in assessment of clinical diagnosis. Clinical Otolaryngology 16: 8–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gramming, P., Sundberg, J., Âkerlund, L. (1991) Variability of phonetograms. Folia phoniatrica 43: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isshiki, N.,Takeuchi, Y. (1970) Factor analysis of hoarseness. Studia phonologica 5: 37–44.Google Scholar
Kitzing, P. (1985) Stroboscopy—a pertinent laryngological examination. Journal of Otolaryngology 14: 151–157.Google ScholarPubMed
Kleinsasser, O. (1974a) Mikrolaryngoskopie und endolaryngeale Mikrochirurgie. Teil I: Technische Entwicklung der Methode. HNO 22: 33–38.Google Scholar
Kleinsasser, O. (1947b) Mikrolaryngoskopie und endolaryngeale Mikrochirurgie. Teil II: Ruckblick auf 2500 Falle. HNO 22: 69–83.Google Scholar
Mahieu, H. F., Dikkers, F. G. (1992) Indirect microlaryngostroboscopic surgery. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 118: 21–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scalco, A. N., Shipman, W. F., Tabb, H. G. (1960) Microscopic suspension laryngoscopy. Annals of Otology. Rhinology and Laryngology 69: 1134–1138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schutte, H. K., Seidner, W. (1983) Recommendation by the Union of European Phoniatricians (UEP): standardizing voice area measurement/phonetography. Folia phoniatrica 35: 286–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidner, W., Wendler, J., Halbedl, G. (1972) Mikrostroboskopie. Folia phoniatrica 24: 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shearer, W. M. (1982). Research Procedures in Speech, Language and Hearing, Waverly Press Inc., Baltimore, pp 86–88, 108–109, 115–116.Google Scholar
Stuckrad, H. von, Lakatos, I. (1975) Überein neues Lupenlaryngoskop (Epipharyngoskop). Larvnqologie, Rhinologie, Otologie 54: 336–340.Google Scholar
Weir, N. (1990). Otolaryngology: an Illustrated History, Butterworths, London, pp 116–117.Google Scholar
Welkowitz, J., Ewen, R. B., Cohen, J. (1982) Introduction to power analysis. In Introductory Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. 3rd Edition. Harcourt Brace Javonavich Inc., Orlando, pp 227–231.Google Scholar