Volume 64, Issue 1 pp. 104-108
CLINICAL RESEARCH SHORT REPORT

Vocal fold injection material does not preclude interpretation of laryngeal electromyography

Michael A. Belsky MS

Michael A. Belsky MS

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Search for more papers by this author
R. Jun Lin MD, MSc

R. Jun Lin MD, MSc

Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
Clark A. Rosen MD

Clark A. Rosen MD

UCSF Voice and Swallowing Center, Division of Laryngology, Department of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Michael C. Munin MD

Michael C. Munin MD

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Libby J. Smith DO

Corresponding Author

Libby J. Smith DO

Department of Otolaryngology, University of Pittsburgh Voice Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Correspondence

Libby Smith, University of Pittsburgh Voice Center, UPMC Mercy Hospital, 1400 Locust St. Suite D-2100, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 07 May 2021
Citations: 3

Presented at American Laryngological Association Annual Conference, Austin, TX 5/1/2019.

Abstract

Introduction/Aims

Temporary vocal fold injection (VFI) is a common treatment for acute and subacute vocal fold paralysis (VFP). Laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) is useful for diagnosing neurogenic causes of VFP. This study evaluated whether the presence of VFI material prevents interpretation of LEMG in patients with acute and subacute VFP.

Methods

Patients with acute and subacute unilateral VFP (onset ≤6 mo) who underwent temporary VFI within 3 mo preceding LEMG were evaluated. A matched control group that did not undergo VFI was also studied. The LEMG team (laryngologist and electromyographer) performed and interpreted LEMG using a pre-specified protocol, including qualitative and quantitative motor unit analysis.

Results

Eighteen patients with VFI underwent LEMG successfully with interpretation of spontaneous activity and motor unit recruitment. Fourteen patients were seen in follow-up to determine accuracy of established LEMG prognosis. Seven of seven subjects with poor LEMG prognosis did not recover vocal fold motion. Five of seven subjects with fair LEMG prognosis recovered vocal fold motion. Findings were similar for the control group.

Discussion

VFI augmentation material did not prevent interpretation of meaningful LEMG data in patients with acute and subacute VFP, and accurate prognoses of vocal fold motion recovery were established.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None of the authors has any conflict of interest to disclose.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

click me