File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: A prospective study comparing the midline and lateral trans-laryngeal ultrasonography approaches in vocal cord assessment before and after thyroid and neck surgeries

TitleA prospective study comparing the midline and lateral trans-laryngeal ultrasonography approaches in vocal cord assessment before and after thyroid and neck surgeries
Authors
KeywordsRecurrent laryngeal nerve
Thyroidectomy
Trans-laryngeal ultrasonography
Ultrasonography
Vocal cord paresis
Issue Date2022
Citation
American Journal of Surgery, 2022, v. 223, n. 4, p. 676-680 How to Cite?
AbstractIntroduction: It is unclear if placing an ultrasound probe along each thyroid cartilage lamina (i.e. the lateral approach) can improve vocal cord (VC) visualization over in the midline (i.e. the midline approach) in trans-larygeal ultrasonography (TLUSG). This study compared VC visualization rates and diagnostic accuracy between the two approaches. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing surgery had their VCs assessed by the two TLUSG approaches and flexible laryngoscopy within the same session. VC visualization rates and diagnostic accuracy of each approach were calculated and compared. Results: Ninety patients (or 180 VCs) were analyzed. The lateral approach had significantly better overall VC visualization rate than the midline approach (93.3% vs. 82.2%, p=<0.001), especially for males (75.0% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.002). Both approaches had comparable accuracy (100% vs. 99.4%). Conclusions: The lateral approach should be preferred because of the significantly better VC visualization rate and comparable accuracy to the midline approach.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/336855
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 3.125
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.957
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFung, Matrix Man Him-
dc.contributor.authorLang, Brian Hung Hin-
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-29T06:57:00Z-
dc.date.available2024-02-29T06:57:00Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationAmerican Journal of Surgery, 2022, v. 223, n. 4, p. 676-680-
dc.identifier.issn0002-9610-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/336855-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: It is unclear if placing an ultrasound probe along each thyroid cartilage lamina (i.e. the lateral approach) can improve vocal cord (VC) visualization over in the midline (i.e. the midline approach) in trans-larygeal ultrasonography (TLUSG). This study compared VC visualization rates and diagnostic accuracy between the two approaches. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing surgery had their VCs assessed by the two TLUSG approaches and flexible laryngoscopy within the same session. VC visualization rates and diagnostic accuracy of each approach were calculated and compared. Results: Ninety patients (or 180 VCs) were analyzed. The lateral approach had significantly better overall VC visualization rate than the midline approach (93.3% vs. 82.2%, p=<0.001), especially for males (75.0% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.002). Both approaches had comparable accuracy (100% vs. 99.4%). Conclusions: The lateral approach should be preferred because of the significantly better VC visualization rate and comparable accuracy to the midline approach.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Surgery-
dc.subjectRecurrent laryngeal nerve-
dc.subjectThyroidectomy-
dc.subjectTrans-laryngeal ultrasonography-
dc.subjectUltrasonography-
dc.subjectVocal cord paresis-
dc.titleA prospective study comparing the midline and lateral trans-laryngeal ultrasonography approaches in vocal cord assessment before and after thyroid and neck surgeries-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.06.016-
dc.identifier.pmid34238589-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85127788197-
dc.identifier.volume223-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage676-
dc.identifier.epage680-
dc.identifier.eissn1879-1883-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000795155400014-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats