The purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based consensus statement for use of laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) for diagnosis and treatment of vocal fold paralysis after recurrent laryngeal neuropathy (RLN).
Two questions regarding LEMG were analyzed: (1) Does LEMG predict recovery in patients with acute unilateral or bilateral vocal fold paralysis? (2) Do LEMG findings change clinical management in these individuals? A systematic review was performed using American Academy of Neurology criteria for rating of diagnostic accuracy.
Active voluntary motor unit potential recruitment and presence of polyphasic motor unit potentials within the first 6 months after lesion onset predicted recovery. Positive sharp waves and/or fibrillation potentials did not predict outcome. The presence of electrical synkinesis may decrease the likelihood of recovery, based on 1 published study. LEMG altered clinical management by changing the initial diagnosis from RLN in 48% of cases. Cricoarytenoid fixation and superior laryngeal neuropathy were the most common other diagnoses observed.
If prognostic information is required in a patient with vocal fold paralysis that is more than 4 weeks and less than 6 months in duration, LEMG should be performed. LEMG may be performed to clarify treatment decisions for vocal fold immobility that is presumed to be caused by RLN. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2025.
All research outputs
#8,746,740
of 29,400,575 outputs
Outputs from Muscle & Nerve
#996
of 3,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,438
of 320,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Muscle & Nerve
#8
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,400,575 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
