Current opinion on laryngeal electromyography

Rosa-Delia Ramírez-Ruiz , Mariam Quintillá , Marta Sandoval , Lucía León , Jose Miguel Costa , Miquel Quer
{"title":"Current opinion on laryngeal electromyography","authors":"Rosa-Delia Ramírez-Ruiz ,&nbsp;Mariam Quintillá ,&nbsp;Marta Sandoval ,&nbsp;Lucía León ,&nbsp;Jose Miguel Costa ,&nbsp;Miquel Quer","doi":"10.1016/j.otoeng.2023.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study evaluates expert opinion on laryngeal electromyography (LEMG).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>A cross-sectional design was used to conduct an online survey of LEMG experts in 2021. They were questioned about the number LEMG performed annually, type of electrodes used, sector worked in, pain during the test, placement of the needle electrodes, interpretation of electrical muscle parameters, diagnosis of neuromuscular injury, prognostic sensitivity in </span>vocal fold<span> paralysis (VFP), laryngeal dystonia<span>, tremor and synkinesis and quantifying LEMG.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>Thirty-seven professionals answered (23 Spanish and 14 from other countries), with a response rate of 21.56%. All physicians used LEMG. 91.9% had one- or two-years’ experience and 56.8% performed 10–40 LEMG per year. 70.3% were otolaryngologists and 27%, neurologists. In 89.1% of cases, a team of electrodiagnostic physician and otolaryngologist performed LEMG. 91.3% of Spanish respondents worked in </span>Public Health<span>, 7.14% of other nationalities; 37.8% in a university department. Bipolar concentric needles electrodes were used by 45.9% and monopolar concentric by 40.5%. 57% professionals considered good patients’ tolerance to the test. LEMG sensitivity was regarded as strong, median and interquartile range were 80.0 [60.0;90.0] to diagnose peripheral nerve injuries<span>, less for other levels of lesions, and strong to evaluate prognosis, 70.0 [50.0;80.0]. Respondents believe locate the thyroarytenoid and the cricothyroid muscles with the needle, 80.0 [70.0;90.0], as opposed to 20.0 [0.00;60.0] the posterior cricoarytenoid. The interpretation of the electrical parts of the LEMG was strong, 80.0 [60.0;90.0]. LEMG identify movements disorders, 60.0 [20.0;80.0], and synkinesis, 70.0 [30.0;80.0]. The professionals prefer quantitative LEMG, 90.0 [60.0;90.0].</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The experts surveyed consider LEMG that is well tolerated by patients. The insertional and spontaneous activity, recruitment and waveform morphology can be assessed easily. LEMG is mainly useful in the study of peripheral nerve injuries, and its value in VFP prognosis is considered strong.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93855,"journal":{"name":"Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola","volume":"75 3","pages":"Pages 148-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2173573523000960","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluates expert opinion on laryngeal electromyography (LEMG).

Methods

A cross-sectional design was used to conduct an online survey of LEMG experts in 2021. They were questioned about the number LEMG performed annually, type of electrodes used, sector worked in, pain during the test, placement of the needle electrodes, interpretation of electrical muscle parameters, diagnosis of neuromuscular injury, prognostic sensitivity in vocal fold paralysis (VFP), laryngeal dystonia, tremor and synkinesis and quantifying LEMG.

Results

Thirty-seven professionals answered (23 Spanish and 14 from other countries), with a response rate of 21.56%. All physicians used LEMG. 91.9% had one- or two-years’ experience and 56.8% performed 10–40 LEMG per year. 70.3% were otolaryngologists and 27%, neurologists. In 89.1% of cases, a team of electrodiagnostic physician and otolaryngologist performed LEMG. 91.3% of Spanish respondents worked in Public Health, 7.14% of other nationalities; 37.8% in a university department. Bipolar concentric needles electrodes were used by 45.9% and monopolar concentric by 40.5%. 57% professionals considered good patients’ tolerance to the test. LEMG sensitivity was regarded as strong, median and interquartile range were 80.0 [60.0;90.0] to diagnose peripheral nerve injuries, less for other levels of lesions, and strong to evaluate prognosis, 70.0 [50.0;80.0]. Respondents believe locate the thyroarytenoid and the cricothyroid muscles with the needle, 80.0 [70.0;90.0], as opposed to 20.0 [0.00;60.0] the posterior cricoarytenoid. The interpretation of the electrical parts of the LEMG was strong, 80.0 [60.0;90.0]. LEMG identify movements disorders, 60.0 [20.0;80.0], and synkinesis, 70.0 [30.0;80.0]. The professionals prefer quantitative LEMG, 90.0 [60.0;90.0].

Conclusions

The experts surveyed consider LEMG that is well tolerated by patients. The insertional and spontaneous activity, recruitment and waveform morphology can be assessed easily. LEMG is mainly useful in the study of peripheral nerve injuries, and its value in VFP prognosis is considered strong.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
喉肌电图研究现状。
目的:本研究评估专家对喉肌电图(LEMG)的意见。方法:采用横断面设计对2021年LEMG专家进行在线调查。他们被问及每年进行LEMG的次数、使用的电极类型、工作部位、测试期间的疼痛、针电极的放置、肌肉电参数的解释、神经肌肉损伤的诊断、声带麻痹(VFP)的预后敏感性、喉肌张力障碍,结果:37名专业人员(23名西班牙语和14名其他国家的专业人员)回答了问题,回答率为21.56%。所有医生都使用了LEMG。91.9%的患者有一到两年的经验,56.8%的患者每年进行10-40次LEMG。70.3%为耳鼻喉科医生,27%为神经科医生。在89.1%的病例中,一个由电诊断医生和耳鼻喉科医生组成的团队进行了LEMG。91.3%的西班牙受访者在公共卫生部门工作,7.14%的其他国籍受访者;37.8%在大学系。45.9%的患者使用双极同心针电极,40.5%的患者使用单极同心针电极。57%的专业人员认为患者对测试的耐受性良好。LEMG的敏感性很强,诊断周围神经损伤的中位和四分位间距为80.0[60.00;90.0],其他级别的病变较少,评估预后的敏感性很高,为70.0[50.00;80.0]。受访者认为用针定位甲状腺杓和环甲肌,为80.0[70.00;90.0],而环杓后肌为20.0[0.00;60.0]。对LEMG的电气部分的解释很强,为80.0[60.00;90.0]。LEMG识别运动障碍,为60.0[20.00;80.0],识别联合运动,为70.0[30.0;80.0]。专业人士更喜欢定量LEMG,为90.0[60.00;90.0]。结论:接受调查的专家认为LEMG患者耐受性良好。插入和自发活动、募集和波形形态可以很容易地评估。LEMG主要用于外周神经损伤的研究,其在VFP预后中的价值被认为是很高的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fenestrated internal yugular vein crossed by spinal nerve. Transethmoidal meningoencephalocele: Endoscopic and radiological morphology. Retrolabyrinthine approach to the lateral skull base: The value of preoperative temporal bone CT analysis Executive Summary of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR) Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management The current situation of tutoring in specialised training in otorhinolaryngology-head and neck surgery in Spain. Where are we? Where do we want to go?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1