Skip to main content
The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology
Download PDF
  • Original article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Acoustic comparison between two different techniques of endoscopic resection of benign laryngeal lesions

The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology volume 30, pages 264–267 (2014)Cite this article

En

Abstract

Introduction

Microdebrider as a new technology in the management of laryngeal lesions is a powered rotatory dissection device with suction assistance; it was used before in orthopedic surgery and sinus surgery. The aim of this work was to assess the microdebrider as a tool for excision of benign laryngeal lesions and compare its results (intraoperative and postoperative) with those of microlaryngeal surgery by cold instruments.

Patients and methods

Forty patients with benign vocal fold lesions were included (25 women and 15 men), with age ranging from 24 to 51 years. Group I was subjected to excision of lesions by the conventional instruments. Group II was subjected to excision of lesions by the microdebrider. Each patient was subjected to the protocol of voice assessment preoperatively and 3 weeks postoperatively. The patients were assessed subjectively by Voice Problem Self-Assessment Scale and objectively by laryngoscopy, stroboscopy, and acoustic analysis.

Results

No significant difference in the acoustic parameters between the two groups was observed, but there was significant difference between the preoperative and the postoperative acoustic parameters for each group. Postoperative parameters satisfactorily improved with resolution of the lesions in both groups.

Conclusion

The microdebrider was determined to be a safe, accurate, and reliable method in removal of benign vocal fold lesions but does not offer major advantages compared with the standard instruments.

References

  1. Brodnitz FS. Results and limitations of vocal rehabilitation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1963; 77: 1148–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kleinsasser O. Pathogenesis of vocal cord polyps. Ann Otol Rhino Laryngol 1982; 91: 378–380.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sulica L, Behraman A. Management of benign vocal fold lesions: a survey of current opinion and practice. Ann Otol Rhino Laryngol 2003; 112: 827–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bastian RW. Benign vocal fold mucosal disorders. In: Cummings CW, Flint PW, Harker LA, et al., editors. Cummings otolaryngology head and neck surgery. 4 th ed. Singular Publishing Group: Mosby Inc.; 2005; 95:2150-2186.

  5. Kotby MN. Classification of voice disorders. In: Kotby MN. The accent method of voice therapy. 1 st ed. Singular Publishing Group Inc. 1995; 1:1-24.

  6. Jaroma M, Pakrinen L, Nutinen J. Treatment of vocal cord granuloma. Acta Otolaryngol 1989; 107: 296–299.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ossoff RH, Werkharen JA, Dere H. Soft tissue complications of laser surgery for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Laryngoscope 1991; 101: 1162–1166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Flint PW. Powered surgical instrument for laryngeal surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck 2000; 122: 263–266.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pasquale K, Wiatrak B, Woolley A, Lowis L. Microdebrider versus CO 2 laser removal of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis: a prospective analysis. Laryngoscope 2003; 113: 139–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel N, Rowe M, Tunkel D. Treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis in children with the microdebrider. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003; 112: 7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Simoni P, Peters GE, Magnuson JS, Carroll WR. Use of the endoscopic microdebrider in the management of airway obstruction from laryngotracheal carcinoma. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003; 112: 11–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McGarry GW, Gana P, Adamson B. The effect of microdebriders on tissue for histological diagnosis. Clin Otolaryngol 1997; 22: 375–376.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Speyer M, Joe J, Davidson JM. Thermal injury patterns and tensile strength of canine oral mucosa after carbon dioxide laser incisions. Laryngoscope 1996; 106: 845–850.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Reinisch L. Laser physics and tissue interactions. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996; 29: 893–914.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rogerson AR, Clark KF, Bandi SR. Voice and healing after vocal fold epithelium removal by CO 2 laser vs. microlaryngeal stripping. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 115: 352–359.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Uloza SV, Uloziene I. Perceptual and acoustic assessment of voice pathology and the efficacy of endolaryngeal phonomicrosurgery. J Voice 2005; 19: 138–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Benninger MS, Jacobson B. Vocal nodules, microwebs and surgery. J Voice 1995; 9: 326–331.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. De Krom G. Consistency and reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech fragments. J Speech Hear Res 1994; 37: 985–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hill P, Haley J, Wynder L. Cigarette smoking: carboxyhemoglobin, plasma nicotine, cotinine and thiocyanate versus self-reported smoking data and cardiovascular disease. J Chronic Dis 1983; 36: 439–449.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Unit of Phoniatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria, 12 Street El-Nahda Roushdy, Alexandria, Egypt

    M. H. Abdel-Monam, A. H. Gaafar & R. M. Maghraby (Lecturer of Phoniatrics)

  2. M.M.B.CH Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt

    S. S. Abdel Gawad

Authors
  1. M. H. Abdel-Monam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. H. Gaafar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. M. Maghraby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. S. Abdel Gawad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. M. Maghraby.

Additional information

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdel-Monam, M.H., Gaafar, A.H., Maghraby, R.M. et al. Acoustic comparison between two different techniques of endoscopic resection of benign laryngeal lesions. Egypt J Otolaryngol 30, 264–267 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4103/1012-5574.138491

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1012-5574.138491

Keywords