Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T17:14:42.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative study of flexible nasoendoscopic and rigid endoscopic examination for patients with upper aerodigestive tract symptoms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2013

J C Fleming ,
Y Al-Radhi ,
A Kurian  and
D B Mitchell
J C Fleming*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, UK
Y Al-Radhi
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, UK
A Kurian
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, UK
D B Mitchell
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, William Harvey Hospital, Ashford, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr J C Fleming, ENT Dept, William Harvey Hospital, Kennington Rd, Willesborough, Ashford TN24 0LZ, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

The objective of the current study was to compare the outcomes of rigid endoscopic procedures with those of pre-operative flexible nasoendoscopy.

Methods:

A total of 253 patients who had undergone rigid endoscopic examination under anaesthesia between 6 January 2010 and 31 August 2011 were identified. Their clinical, surgical and histological records were evaluated.

Results:

A total of 213 patients had a flexible nasoendoscopic procedure performed and recorded pre-operatively, and 82 in this cohort had a specific lesion or area of concern identified. There were 21 confirmed malignant biopsy results, the majority of which were squamous cell carcinoma. No patient with a negative pre-operative endoscopy had a malignant lesion discovered on endoscopic biopsy. The sensitivity and specificity of pre-operative nasoendoscopy were 100 per cent and 66.3 per cent, respectively.

Conclusion:

Diagnostic rigid endoscopic examination of the upper aerodigestive tract remains an important tool for excluding malignancy in high-risk patients, but is an unnecessary procedure in those low-risk patients with normal pre-operative findings.

Keywords

EndoscopyHead And Neck NeoplasmsEarly DiagnosisPreoperative Procedures
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 127 , Issue 10 , October 2013 , pp. 1012 - 1016
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Davey, S, Dixon, H, Gibbins, N, Lew-Gor, S, Weighill, J, Harries, ML. Fast track head and neck referrals audit. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147(suppl 2):158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Postma, GN, Cohen, JT, Belafsky, PC, Halum, SL, Gupta, SK, Bach, KK et al. Transnasal esophagoscopy: revisited (over 700 consecutive cases). Laryngoscope 2005;115:321–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Department of Health: Referral guidelines for suspected cancer. In: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4008746 [24 September 2012]Google Scholar
4NICE: CG27 Referral for suspected cancer: NICE guidelines. In: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG27/NICEGuidance/pdf/English [20 September 2012]Google Scholar
5Webb, CJ, Makura, ZGG, Fenton, JE, Jackson, SR, McCormick, MS, Jones, AS. Globus pharyngeus: a postal questionnaire survey of ENT consultants. Clin Otolaryngol 2000;25:566–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Nagano, H, Yoshifuku, K, Kurono, Y. Association of a globus sensation with esophageal diseases. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010;37:195–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Harar, RP, Kumar, S, Saeed, MA, Gatland, DJ. Management of globus pharyngeus: review of 699 cases. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:522–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Takwoingi, YM, Kale, US, Morgan, DW. Rigid endoscopy in globus pharyngeus: how valuable is it? J Laryngol Otol 2006;121:42–6Google Scholar