SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparison between rigid telescopic and flexible fiberoptic laryngostroboscopy.

Braz J Otorhinolaryngol · 2025-04-09

DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2025.101599PMID: 40203483

Open accessComparative Study; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveStroboscopy can uncover significant laryngeal abnormalities in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD). Rigid telescope and flexible fiberscopy present differing advantages.ObjectiveTo compare the stroboscopic findings observed using rigid telescopy to those obtained through fiberoptic examination.MethodsA prospective study was conducted in order to evaluate 36 patients with PD from January 2018 to December 2019. The HY - Degree of Disability Scale was adopted in order to assess individual patients' levels of impairment. The patients included in this study were grouped- higher than 1.5 on the scale. There were 22 men and 14 women, with ages varying from 41 to 78. Three observers analyzed the recording data, with a protocol for stroboscopic evaluation being adopted.ResultsTremor, open phase closure and vocal fold bowing were the most common findings among patients. Aperiodic voice in 4 cases recommended against stroboscopic analysis. Strong gag reflex in another 3 cases, made evaluation with rigid telescope impossible. The irregularity of the edge, glottic closure, prevalence of the glottic cycle phase, amplitude; mucosal wave; vibratory behavior; phase symmetry, periodicity and movement extension were evaluated by both methods. The vibratory source was exclusively glottic in all cases.ConclusionVideolaryngostroboscopy can be performed by means of both methods - rigid and fiberoptic examination.Level of evidenceLevel III.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.