Flexible Versus Rigid Laryngoscopy: A Prospective, Blinded Comparison of Image Quality

Flexible Versus Rigid Laryngoscopy: A Prospective, Blinded Comparison of Image Quality

To compare flexible distal-chip laryngoscopy (FDL) and rigid telescopic laryngoscopy (RTL) in image quality and diagnostic ability. Prospective cohort study; blinded comparison. Eighteen normal adult subjects were recruited to undergo both FDL and RTL and normalized videos were recorded. Three blind...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of voice 2023-05, Vol.37 (3), p.440-443
Main Authors: Boles, Roger W., Gao, William Z., Johns, Michael M., Daniero, James J., Grant, Nazaneen N., Rubin, Adam D., Bhatt, Neel K., Hapner, Edie R., O'Dell, Karla
Format: Article
Language:eng
Subjects:
Adult
Humans
Indirect laryngoscopy–Flexible laryngoscopy–Rigid laryngoscopy–Image quality–Diagnostic ability
Laryngoscopy - methods
Lighting
Observer Variation
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To compare flexible distal-chip laryngoscopy (FDL) and rigid telescopic laryngoscopy (RTL) in image quality and diagnostic ability. Prospective cohort study; blinded comparison. Eighteen normal adult subjects were recruited to undergo both FDL and RTL and normalized videos were recorded. Three blinded laryngologists compared the videos for color fidelity, illumination, resolution, and vascularity, and indicated superiority with FDL, RTL, or no difference. Raters also reported if an abnormality was seen and in which video it was better visualized. Videos for two subjects were repeated to assess intra-rater reliability, making 20 video comparisons across 3 raters for a total of 60 ratings. Differences in responses were analyzed via Mann-Whitney U and Pearson Χ2. Inter-rater reliability was assessed via Fleiss’ kappa, and intra-rater reliability was assessed via percent agreement. RTL was rated superior in all categories of image quality (47 vs 5 vs 8, P < 0.01; 47 vs 7 vs 6, P < 0.01; 51 vs 5 vs 4, P
ISSN:0892-1997
1873-4588