Should Video‐Endoscopic Documentation be the New Standard in Office Laryngeal Examination?

Abstract

I n recent years, otolaryngologists have been urged to use video endoscopic laryngoscopy as their standard laryngeal examination. Mirror laryngoscopy, it is pointed out, is subjective, fleeting, and memory-dependent. By contrast, video laryngoscopy is visually and acoustically objective, as well as documentary and archival. Nevertheless, there must be many laryngologists who look for further evidence that the expense of video endoscopic equipment-and the time involved in performing, taping, and retrieving the records of these examinations-is justified. Video laryngoscopy would be the standard procedure if this were not the case. Perhaps it would be useful to itemize the claims for video en-From the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic-Jacksonville (Dr. Pearson), and the Department of Otolaryngology, Mayo Clinic-Rochester (Dr. Neel).

Video rigid laryngeal endoscopy compared to laryngeal mirror examination: An assessment of patient comfort and clinical visualization

“…As early as 1987, Pearson and Neel4 editorialized that videoendoscopic laryngeal examination is useful but had not been shown to improve patient care. Subsequently, Barker and Dort2 recommended that VRLE be utilized in all university teaching programs.…”