Evaluation of clinical value of videokymography for diagnosis and treatment of voice disorders
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu hodnotící studie, časopisecké články
PubMed
28856469
DOI
10.1007/s00405-017-4726-1
PII: 10.1007/s00405-017-4726-1
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Clinical value, Stroboscopy, Vibration characteristics, Videokymography, Vocal folds,
- MeSH
- audiovizuální záznam * MeSH
- dítě MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- hlasové řasy fyziologie MeSH
- kvalita hlasu MeSH
- kymografie metody MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- otorinolaryngologie MeSH
- poruchy hlasu diagnóza terapie MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- stroboskopie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dítě MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- hodnotící studie MeSH
This study aimed at determining the clinical value of videokymography (VKG) as an additional tool for the assessment of voice disorders. 105 subjects with voice disorders were examined by an experienced laryngologist. A questionnaire was used to specify diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and treatment recommendations before and after VKG. The first part of questionnaire was filled by the laryngologist for each patient after routine ear-nose-throat evaluation, including stroboscopy, the second part after the subsequent VKG examination. In 31% of subjects VKG confirmed the stroboscopic diagnosis, in 44% it made the diagnosis more accurate, in 20% there was adjustment of the treatment, and in 5% it was not found diagnostically useful. After VKG the diagnostic confidence increased in 68% of the subjects. VKG may help clinicians to take some important treatment decisions and may be recommended to be performed in patients, where clinicians are uncertain about diagnosis and treatment.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Laryngoscope. 2000 Sep;110(9):1567-73 PubMed
J Voice. 2016 Nov;30(6):766.e13-766.e22 PubMed
J Voice. 2016 Jul;30(4):493-500 PubMed
J Voice. 2008 Nov;22(6):699-708 PubMed
J Voice. 2003 Mar;17(1):3-11 PubMed
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2013 Dec;38(4):182-92 PubMed
Hippokratia. 2012 Oct;16(4):324-8 PubMed
J Voice. 2015 Jan;29(1):109-19 PubMed
Laryngoscope. 2013 Jan;123(1):215-9 PubMed
J Voice. 2012 Nov;26(6):812.e1-10 PubMed
Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1970;22(2):100-6 PubMed
Laryngoscope. 2008 Aug;118(8):1504-10 PubMed
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008 Jun;117(6):413-24 PubMed
J Voice. 1996 Jun;10(2):201-5 PubMed
J Voice. 2012 Jul;26(4):471-9 PubMed
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Jan;269(1):207-12 PubMed
J Voice. 1997 Mar;11(1):104-7 PubMed
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2001;26(1):26-36 PubMed
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012 Feb;21(1):3-15 PubMed
Laryngoscope. 2007 Jun;117(6):1123-6 PubMed
Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2008;60(1):33-44 PubMed
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007 Mar;116(3):172-80 PubMed
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992 Jul;107(1):95-100 PubMed
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2004;29(3):128-34 PubMed
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005 Feb;69(2):215-9 PubMed
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991 Sep;100(9 Pt 1):725-7 PubMed
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Dec;20(6):429-36 PubMed
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009 Mar;135(3):274-81 PubMed
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Dec;20(6):458-65 PubMed
Med Eng Phys. 2008 Jan;30(1):59-66 PubMed
Cancer Res. 2015 Jan 1;75(1):31-9 PubMed
J Voice. 2016 Mar;30(2):205-14 PubMed
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2010 Jan;119(1):1-9 PubMed
J Voice. 2016 Mar;30(2):224-7 PubMed
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Jan 1;60(1):24-37 PubMed
J Voice. 2015 Nov;29(6):755-62 PubMed
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1977 Jan-Feb;86(1 Pt 1):58-66 PubMed
Laryngoscope. 2012 Jan;122(1):58-65 PubMed
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):47-54 PubMed
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Jun;13(3):135-7 PubMed
J Voice. 2015 Jul;29(4):403-9 PubMed
Laryngoscope. 2009 Nov;119 Suppl 2:S185-212 PubMed
