Advertisement
Research Article|Articles in Press

Safety of Laryngeal Electromyography and Repetitive Stimulation

Published:January 30, 2023DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.12.009

      SUMMARY

      Objectives

      Laryngeal Electromyography (LEMG) is a procedure used to assess electrical signals from laryngeal muscles. It is considered to be the gold standard test for examining vocal fold paresis/paralysis. Repetitive stimulation studies, which usually are performed at the time of LEMG, can aid in assessment of neuromuscular function. Electromyography poses risks to the patient due to the use of electricity and needles. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the safety of LEMG and discuss the possible complications.

      Methods

      This was a retrospective review of patients from January 2015 through February 2022. Information from patient charts included age, sex, chief complaint, past medical history, family medical history, medications, social history, strobovideolaryngoscopy results, type of paresis, professional voice user status, presence of pacemaker, laryngeal electromyography and repetitive stimulation study results, and reported complications. Complications were considered to be anything that differed from the norm. Pain was included as a complication. Data were analyzed for relationships and significance.

      Results

      Five hundred patients were included. Eighteen of the 500 (3.6%) experienced complications. Four (2.1%) males and 14 (4.5%) females experienced complications. Nine of the 18 (50%) reported pain after the procedure, 1 (5.56%) had excessive bleeding (controlled with pressure), 5 (27.78%) reported voice changes, and 3 (16.67%) experienced difficulty with completion of the procedure. No patients with pacemakers or patients taking anticoagulants had complications, but repetitive stimulation studies were not performed on patients with pacemakers.

      Conclusions

      LEMG and repetitive stimulation studies are safe and effective procedures to examine laryngeal muscles. Repetitive stimulation studies are not recommended for patients with pacemakers.

      KEY WORDS

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Rubin DI.
        Needle electromyography: basic concepts.
        Handb Clin Neurol. 2019; 160: 243-256https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64032-1.00016-3
        • Whittaker RG.
        The fundamentals of electromyography.
        Pract Neurol. 2012; 12: 187-194https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2011-000198
        • Sataloff RT
        • Mandel S
        • Heman-Ackah Y
        • et al.
        Laryngeal Electromyography.
        3rd ed. Plural Publishing, San Diego, CA2017: 1-235
        • Sataloff RT
        • Praneetvatakul P
        • Heuer RJ
        • et al.
        Laryngeal electromyography: clinical application.
        J Voice. 2010; 24: 228-234https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.08.005
        • Kimaid PA
        • Crespo AN
        • Moreira AL
        • et al.
        Laryngeal electromyography techniques and clinical use.
        J Clin Neurophysiol. 2015; 32: 274-283https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000185
        • Meyer TK
        • Hillel AD.
        Is laryngeal electromyography useful in the diagnosis and management of vocal fold paresis/paralysis?.
        Laryngoscope. 2011; 121: 234-235https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.21381
        • Koufman JA
        • Postma GN
        • Whang CS
        • et al.
        Diagnostic laryngeal electromyography: the Wake Forest experience 1995-1999.
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001; 124: 603-606https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2001.115856
        • Ingle JW
        • Young VN
        • Smith LJ
        • et al.
        Prospective evaluation of the clinical utility of laryngeal electromyography.
        Laryngoscope. 2014; 124: 2745-2749https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24711
        • O'Bryan R
        • Kincaid J.
        Nerve conduction studies: basic concepts and patterns of abnormalities.
        Neurol Clin. 2021; 39: 897-917https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncl.2021.06.002
        • Cushman DM
        • Strenn Q
        • Elmer A
        • et al.
        Complications associated with electromyography: a systematic review.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 99: 149-155https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001304
        • Crespo AN
        • Kimaid PA
        • Quagliato EM
        • et al.
        Laryngeal electromyography: technical features.
        Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 44: 237-241
        • Lu YA
        • Pei YC
        • Wong AM
        • et al.
        Hemodynamic stability during laryngeal electromyography procedures.
        Acta Otolaryngol. 2017; 137: 1110-1114https://doi.org/10.1080/00016489.2017.1334961
        • O'Connell Ferster AP
        • Hu A.
        Perceptions of pain of laryngeal electromyography.
        Laryngoscope. 2018; 128: 896-900https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26860
        • Schoeck AP
        • Mellion ML
        • Gilchrist JM
        • et al.
        Safety of nerve conduction studies in patients with implanted cardiac devices.
        Muscle Nerve. 2007; 35: 521-524https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.20690
        • Al-Shekhlee A
        • Shapiro BE
        • Preston DC.
        Iatrogenic complications and risks of nerve conduction studies and needle electromyography.
        Muscle Nerve. 2003; 27: 517-526https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.10315