Relevance of indirect laryngoscopy as an examination tool in present day otorhinolaryngological practice

Abstract

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> The objective of the study was to determine the difference in extent of laryngeal visualization between indirect laryngoscopy (IDL) mirror and rigid endoscopy (70°) and relevance of IDL in present day otolaryngological practice.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> 100 patients attending to the Department of ENT, Vijayanagara Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari, Karnataka with complaints referable to larynx and upper digestive tract were taken up for study. All patients underwent IDL mirror and rigid endoscopic (4 mm, 70°) examination. The extent of laryngeal visualization by the clinician was recorded for each examination. </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> Out of 100 patients who underwent IDL mirror examination and rigid endoscopic (4 mm, 70°) examination in 87% of cases IDL mirror examination was adequate for making the diagnosis and in 11% of cases we needed rigid endoscopic examination for making the diagnosis. In 2% of cases we were not able to visualize the pathologies even with rigid endoscopy, in whom we needed other modalities of examination like radiological evidence to arrive at a diagnosis.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> In the present study, in 87% of the cases IDL mirror examination was adequate for making the diagnosis. Eleven cases needed rigid endoscopic (4 mm, 70°) examination to aid in diagnosis of pathologies. Even though laryngeal mirror examination is less comfortable, causing gagging for patient and may provide less complete information when compared to rigid endoscopy because of its less expensive, better depth visualization of structures and near real size images provides a versatile tool till date. Be that as it may indirect laryngoscopic mirror examination remains the mainstay of otolaryngological practice in today’s Otolaryngology practice.</p>