Cargando…

Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi‐observer paired analysis of videos

OBJECTIVES: High definition laryngoscopy (HDL) could lead to better interpretation of the pharyngeal and laryngeal mucosa than regularly used fiberoptic laryngoscopy (FOL). The primary aim of this study is to quantify the diagnostic advantage of HDL over FOL in detecting mucosal anomalies in general...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scholman, Constanze, Westra, Jeroen M., Zwakenberg, Manon A., Dikkers, Frederik G., Halmos, Gyorgy B., Wedman, Jan, Wachters, Jan E., van der Laan, Bernard F.A.M., Plaat, Boudewijn E.C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6972529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31747481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13476
_version_ 1783489851701592064
author Scholman, Constanze
Westra, Jeroen M.
Zwakenberg, Manon A.
Dikkers, Frederik G.
Halmos, Gyorgy B.
Wedman, Jan
Wachters, Jan E.
van der Laan, Bernard F.A.M.
Plaat, Boudewijn E.C.
author_facet Scholman, Constanze
Westra, Jeroen M.
Zwakenberg, Manon A.
Dikkers, Frederik G.
Halmos, Gyorgy B.
Wedman, Jan
Wachters, Jan E.
van der Laan, Bernard F.A.M.
Plaat, Boudewijn E.C.
author_sort Scholman, Constanze
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: High definition laryngoscopy (HDL) could lead to better interpretation of the pharyngeal and laryngeal mucosa than regularly used fiberoptic laryngoscopy (FOL). The primary aim of this study is to quantify the diagnostic advantage of HDL over FOL in detecting mucosal anomalies in general, in differentiating malignant from benign lesions and in predicting specific histological entities. The secondary aim is to analyse image quality of both laryngoscopes. DESIGN: Retrospective paired analysis with multiple observers evaluating endoscopic videos simulating daily clinical practice. SETTING: A tertiary referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS: In 36 patients, both FOL and HDL videos were obtained. Six observers were provided with additional clinical information, and 36 FOL and HDL videos were evaluated in a randomised order. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of observers using both flexible laryngoscopes were calculated for detection of mucosal lesions in general and uncovering malignant lesions. Sensitivities were calculated for prediction of specific histological entities. Image quality (scale 1‐10) was assessed for both flexible laryngoscopes. RESULTS: HDL reached higher sensitivity compared to FOL for detection of mucosal abnormalities in general (96.0% vs 90.4%; P = .03), differentiating malignant from benign lesions (91.7% vs 79.8%; P = .03) and prediction of specific histological entities (59.7% vs 47.2%; P < .01). Image quality was judged better with HDL in comparison with FOL (mean: 8.4 vs 5.4, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: HDL is superior to FOL in detecting mucosal anomalies in general, malignancies and specific histological entities. Image quality is considered as superior using HDL compared to FOL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6972529
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69725292020-01-27 Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi‐observer paired analysis of videos Scholman, Constanze Westra, Jeroen M. Zwakenberg, Manon A. Dikkers, Frederik G. Halmos, Gyorgy B. Wedman, Jan Wachters, Jan E. van der Laan, Bernard F.A.M. Plaat, Boudewijn E.C. Clin Otolaryngol Original Articles OBJECTIVES: High definition laryngoscopy (HDL) could lead to better interpretation of the pharyngeal and laryngeal mucosa than regularly used fiberoptic laryngoscopy (FOL). The primary aim of this study is to quantify the diagnostic advantage of HDL over FOL in detecting mucosal anomalies in general, in differentiating malignant from benign lesions and in predicting specific histological entities. The secondary aim is to analyse image quality of both laryngoscopes. DESIGN: Retrospective paired analysis with multiple observers evaluating endoscopic videos simulating daily clinical practice. SETTING: A tertiary referral hospital. PARTICIPANTS: In 36 patients, both FOL and HDL videos were obtained. Six observers were provided with additional clinical information, and 36 FOL and HDL videos were evaluated in a randomised order. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of observers using both flexible laryngoscopes were calculated for detection of mucosal lesions in general and uncovering malignant lesions. Sensitivities were calculated for prediction of specific histological entities. Image quality (scale 1‐10) was assessed for both flexible laryngoscopes. RESULTS: HDL reached higher sensitivity compared to FOL for detection of mucosal abnormalities in general (96.0% vs 90.4%; P = .03), differentiating malignant from benign lesions (91.7% vs 79.8%; P = .03) and prediction of specific histological entities (59.7% vs 47.2%; P < .01). Image quality was judged better with HDL in comparison with FOL (mean: 8.4 vs 5.4, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: HDL is superior to FOL in detecting mucosal anomalies in general, malignancies and specific histological entities. Image quality is considered as superior using HDL compared to FOL. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-12-06 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6972529/ /pubmed/31747481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13476 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Clinical Otolaryngology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Scholman, Constanze
Westra, Jeroen M.
Zwakenberg, Manon A.
Dikkers, Frederik G.
Halmos, Gyorgy B.
Wedman, Jan
Wachters, Jan E.
van der Laan, Bernard F.A.M.
Plaat, Boudewijn E.C.
Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi‐observer paired analysis of videos
title Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi‐observer paired analysis of videos
title_full Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi‐observer paired analysis of videos
title_fullStr Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi‐observer paired analysis of videos
title_full_unstemmed Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi‐observer paired analysis of videos
title_short Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi‐observer paired analysis of videos
title_sort differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: a multi‐observer paired analysis of videos
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6972529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31747481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13476
work_keys_str_mv AT scholmanconstanze differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos
AT westrajeroenm differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos
AT zwakenbergmanona differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos
AT dikkersfrederikg differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos
AT halmosgyorgyb differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos
AT wedmanjan differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos
AT wachtersjane differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos
AT vanderlaanbernardfam differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos
AT plaatboudewijnec differencesinthediagnosticvaluebetweenfiberopticandhighdefinitionlaryngoscopyforthecharacterisationofpharyngealandlaryngeallesionsamultiobserverpairedanalysisofvideos