Clinical and Anatomical Variation During Assessment of Maximum Glottic Angle.

INTRODUCTION: Quantitative measurement and analysis of glottic abduction is used to assess laryngeal function and success of interventions; however, the consistency of measurement over time has not been established. This study assesses the consistency of glottic abduction measurements across visits in healthy patients and anatomic factors impacting these measurements. METHODS: Review of patients with two sequential flexible stroboscopic exams over seven months from 2019-2022. Images of maximal glottic abduction were captured and uploaded into and measured with ImageJ. Cadaver heads were used to assess the impact of visualization angles on glottic measurements with a monofilament inserted into the supraglottis of each cadaver as a point of reference. Comparisons were done with a paired T-test, T-test, or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients and twenty-six cadaveric exams were included. Absolute change in maximum glottic abduction angle (MGAA) was 6.90° (95% CI [5.36°, 8.42°]; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in change in MGAA by gender or age. Twenty percent of patients had a change of at least 25% in their MGAA between visits. Absolute differences in glottic angle between nasal side for cadaveric measurements was 4.77 ± 4.59° (p < 0.005)-2.22° less than the change in MGAA seen over time (p = 0.185). CONCLUSION: Maximal glottic abduction angles varied significantly between visits. Factors considered to be contributing to the differences include different viewing windows between examinations due to the position and angulation of the laryngoscope and changes in patient positioning, intra- and inter-rater variations in measurement, and patient effort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/a Laryngoscope, 134:2793-2798, 2024.

Surgery versus Imaging in Non-Localizing Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Cost-Effectiveness Model.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether advanced imaging is cost-effective compared to primary bilateral neck exploration in the management of non-localizing primary hyperparathyroidism. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision tree model and available Medicare financial data using data from 347 consecutive patients having parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism with either 1) positive, concordant ultrasound and sestamibi or 2) negative sestamibi and negative ultrasound. RESULTS: Bilateral neck exploration (BNE) costs $9578 and has a success rate of 97.3%. Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) + minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) was modeled to have a total cost of $8197 with a success rate of 98.6%. SPECT/computed tomography (CT) + MIP was modeled to have a total cost of $8271 and a 98.9% success rate. Four-dimensional (4D)-CT + MIP was modeled to cost $8146 with a success rate of 99%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (IECR) (as compared to BNE) were -536.1, -605.5, and -701.6 ($/percent cure rate) for SPECT, SPECT/CT, and 4D-CT respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate the change in IECR and cut-off points (IECR = 0) for four major variables. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-localizing primary hyperparathyroidism, advanced imaging is associated with cost-savings compared to routine bilateral neck exploration. Increased cost-savings were predicted with increased imaging accuracy and decreased imaging costs. Increasing time for BNE or decreasing time for MIP were associated with increased cost savings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III Laryngoscope, 2020.

Assessment and Treatment of Pain during In-Office Otolaryngology Procedures: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To qualitatively assess practices of periprocedural pain assessment and control and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for pain during in-office procedures reported in the otolaryngology literature through a systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science searches from inception to 2018. REVIEW METHODS: English-language studies reporting qualitative or quantitative data for periprocedural pain assessment in adult patients undergoing in-office otolaryngology procedures were included. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias or Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tools as appropriate. Two reviewers screened all articles. Bias was assessed by 3 reviewers. RESULTS: Eighty-six studies describing 32 types of procedures met inclusion criteria. Study quality and risk of bias ranged from good to serious but did not affect assessed outcomes. Validated methods of pain assessment were used by only 45% of studies. The most commonly used pain assessment was patient tolerance, or ability to simply complete a procedure. Only 5.8% of studies elicited patients' baseline pain levels prior to procedures, and a qualitative assessment of pain was done in merely 3.5%. Eleven unique pain control regimens were described in the literature, with 8% of studies failing to report method of pain control. CONCLUSION: Many reports of measures and management of pain for in-office procedures exist but few employ validated measures, few are standardized, and current data do not support any specific pain control measures over others. Significant opportunity remains to investigate methods for improving patient pain and tolerance of in-office procedures.