Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T16:59:33.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minimum dataset for endolaryngeal surgery: pilot study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2010

I Nixon ,
T Kunanandam  and
K MacKenzie
I Nixon*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, UK
T Kunanandam
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmay, Glasgow, UK
K MacKenzie
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Scotland, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Iain Nixon, Department of ENT, Gartnavel General Hospital, Great Western Road, Glasgow G12 0YN, Scotland, UK. E-mail: iainjnixon@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Airway endoscopy carries a risk of detrimental effects. We aimed to develop a minimum endolaryngeal surgery dataset, for use in laryngology practice as an audit tool.

Materials and methods:

A minimum dataset was designed, incorporating pre- and post-operative clinical, surgical and patient-reported data. We prospectively recruited 272 consecutive patients between May 2007 and May 2009. The Voice Symptom Scale was used to assess patient-reported vocal morbidity.

Results:

Complete clinical and surgical details were obtained for 272 patients (100 per cent). Thus, information on diagnosis, procedure type and procedure aim was obtained for all patients. The Voice Symptom Scale was completed pre-operatively by 250 patients, and three months post-operatively by 169 patients (68 per cent). A statistically significant improvement in Voice Symptom Scale score was observed in patients undergoing surgery to improve their voice, compared with pre-operative measurements (p = 0.01).

Discussion:

We developed a minimum dataset to characterise endolaryngeal surgical activity and outcomes. This dataset could be used to determine best practice, and to audit endolaryngeal surgery outcomes for surgeon recertification and revalidation.

Keywords

Outcome Assessment (Health Care)Physician's Practice PatternsLaryngoscopy
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 9 , September 2010 , pp. 980 - 985
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2010

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

1Brandenburg, JH, Kirkham, W, Koschkee, D. Vocal cord augmentation with autogenous fat. Laryngoscope 1992;102:495–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Courey, MS, Garrett, CG, Ossoff, RH. Medial microflap for excision of benign vocal fold lesions. Laryngoscope 1997;107:340–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Johns, MM, Garrett, CG, Hwang, J, Ossoff, RH, Courey, MS. Quality-of-life outcomes following laryngeal endoscopic surgery for non-neoplastic vocal fold lesions. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2004;113:597–601CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Geyer, M, Ledda, GP, Tan, N, Brennan, PA, Puxeddu, R. Carbon dioxide laser-assisted phonosurgery for benign glottic lesions. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:87–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Steiner, W. Results of curative laser microsurgery of laryngeal carcinomas. Am J Otolaryngol 1993;14:116–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Deary, IJ, Wilson, JA, Carding, PN, MacKenzie, K. VoiSS: a patient-derived Voice Symptom Scale. J Psychosom Res 2003;54:483–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Steen, IN, MacKenzie, K, Carding, PN, Webb, A, Deary, IJ, Wilson, JA. Optimising outcome assessment of voice interventions, II: sensitivity to change of self-reported and observer-rated measures. J Laryngol Otol 2008;122:46–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Webb, AL, Carding, PN, Deary, IJ, MacKenzie, K, Steen, IN, Wilson, JA. Optimising outcome assessment of voice interventions, I: reliability and validity of three self-reported scales. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:763–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Maughan, NJ, Morris, E, Forman, D, Quirke, P. The validity of the Royal College of Pathologists' colorectal cancer minimum dataset within a population. Br J Cancer 2007;97:1393–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Thomas, K, Emberton, M, Mundy, AR. Towards a minimum dataset in urology. BJU Int 2000;86:765–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Johnson, NW. Minimum dataset for head and neck cancer. Br Dent J 1999;186:368–9Google ScholarPubMed
12Singh, A, Lyons, M. Minimum dataset for the recording of findings of flexible nasopharyngolaryngoscopy. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:972–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Dutt, SN, Pahor, AL. Minimum dataset for recording myringotomy and ventilation tube insertion. J Laryngol Otol 2001;115:812–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed