Comparison of concentric needle versus hooked-wire electrodes in the canine larynx

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of a specific electrode type in laryngeal electromyography has not been standardized. Laryngeal electromyography is usually performed with hooked-wire electrodes or concentric needle electrodes. Hooked-wire electrodes have the advantage of allowing laryngeal movement with ease and comfort, whereas the concentric needle electrodes have benefits from a technical aspect and may be advanced, withdrawn, or redirected during attempts to appropriately place the electrode. OBJECTIVES: This study examines whether hooked-wire electrodes permit more stable recordings than standard concentric needle electrodes at rest and after large-scale movements of the larynx and surrounding structures. A histologic comparison of tissue injury resulting from placement and removal of the two electrode types is also made by evaluation of the vocal folds. METHODS: Electrodes were percutaneously placed into the thyroarytenoid muscles of 10 adult canines. Amplitude of electromyographic activity was measured and compared during vagal stimulation before and after large-scale laryngeal movements. Signal consistency over time was examined. Animals were killed and vocal fold injury was graded and compared histologically. RESULTS: Waveform morphology did not consistently differ between electrode types. The variability of electromyographic amplitude was greater for the hooked-wire electrode ( p < 0.05), whereas the mean amplitude measures before and after large-scale laryngeal movements did not differ ( p > 0.05). Inflammatory responses and hematoma formation were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Waveform morphology of electromyographic signals registered from both electrode types show similar complex action potentials. There is no difference between the hooked-wire electrode and the concentric needle electrode in terms of electrode stability or vocal fold injury in the thyroarytenoid muscle after large-scale laryngeal movements. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:655-62.)