Videostroboscopy

Number: 0305

Table Of Contents

Policy
Applicable CPT / HCPCS / ICD-10 Codes
Background
References


Policy

Scope of Policy

This Clinical Policy Bulletin addresses videostroboscopy.

  1. Medical Necessity

    Aetna considers videostroboscopy medically necessary as a diagnostic procedure for detection of vocal cord pathology (e.g., polyps, invasive carcinoma, and vocal cord paresis and paralysis) in members who have received both a mirror-image and an endoscopic examination, and in whom no abnormal function or clinical pathology has been found with these tests, despite persistent symptoms.

  2. Experimental and Investigational

    Aetna considers videostroboscopy experimental and investigational for all other indications because its effectiveness for indications other than the one listed above has not been established.


Table:

CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-10 Codes

Code Code Description

Information in the [brackets] below has been added for clarification purposes.   Codes requiring a 7th character are represented by "+":

ICD-10 codes will become effective as of October 1, 2015 :

CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:

31579 Laryngoscopy, flexible or rigid fiberoptic, with stroboscopy

Other CPT codes related to the CPB:

31505 Laryngoscopy, indirect: diagnostic (separate procedure)
31520 Laryngoscopy, direct, with or without tracheoscopy; diagnostic, newborn
31525     diagnostic, except newborn
31526     diagnostic, with operating microscope or telescope

ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met (not all-inclusive):

C32.0 - C32.2 Malignant neoplasm of glottis, supraglottis, and subglottis [vocal cords]
C78.39 Secondary malignant neoplasm of other respiratory organs [invasive carcinoma vocal cords]
D02.0 Carcinoma in situ of larynx [vocal cords]
D14.1 Benign neoplasm of larynx [vocal cord]
D38.0 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of larynx [vocal cords]
D49.1 Neoplasms of unspecified behavior of respiratory system [vocal cords]
J38.00 - J38.7 Diseases of vocal cords and larynx, not elsewhere classified

Background

The cover and body of the vocal cord have different densities and therefore different mechanical properties.  The stiff underlying body is comprised of the vocalis muscle of the vocal cord and the deep lamina propria, and is responsible for the transverse movement of the cord.  The loose cover consists of the overlying mucosa and the superficial lamina propria, and vibrates primarily in the vertical direction and forms the traveling mucosal wave.  Ordinarily, the vibrating movements of the vocal cords are too rapid to be seen by the unaided eye.  One method of getting a clear view is by means of videostroboscopy.

Evaluation of the larynx by videostroboscopy is usually performed using a stroboscopic unit coupled with a Wolf rigid laryngoscope and a video recorder.  If patients exhibit extreme gagging, the transoral approach is replaced by the transnasal approach using a flexible fiberoptic laryngoscope.  For the latter procedure, local anesthesia is topically applied to the nasal, pharyngeal, and laryngeal mucosa of the patient before the fiberscope is inserted transnasally into the larynx.  The procedure requires the patient to cause the vocal cords to vibrate by speaking or singing during the evaluation: therefore, the procedure can not be performed on aphonic patients, patients who are unable to hold steady phonation for at least 2 to 3 seconds, and persons with a high degree of breathy voice and incomplete glottic closure.

Videostroboscopy provides detection of vibratory asymmetries, structural abnormalities, small masses, submucosal scars and other conditions that might not be visible under continuous light.  It produces not only valuable information concerning the motion of the normal vocal cord movements.  In contrast, stroboscopic examination revealed that half of the same patients had reduced mobility.  Studies have suggested that stroboscopic examinations might be the most useful technique in the early detection of invasive cancers of the vocal cords.  A careful videostroboscopic examination can differentiate, to a certain extent, epithelial hyperplasia and dysplasia from invasive carcinoma of the vocal cords.  Videostroboscopy is also useful for evaluating patients with vocal cord paralysis.

Mehta and Hillman (2012) summarized recent technological advancements and insight into the role of stroboscopy in laryngeal imaging.  Although stroboscopic technology has not undergone major technological improvements, recent clarifications have been made to the application of stroboscopic principles to video-based laryngeal imaging.  Also recent advances in coupling stroboscopy with high-definition video cameras provide higher spatial resolution of vocal fold vibratory function during phonation.  Studies indicated that the inter-rater reliability of visual stroboscopic assessment varies depending on the laryngeal feature being rated and that only a subset of features may be needed to be representative of an entire assessment.  High-speed videoendoscopy (HSV) judgments have been shown to be more sensitive than stroboscopy for evaluating vocal fold phase asymmetry, pointing to the future potential of complementing stroboscopy with alternative imaging modalities in hybrid systems.  The authors concluded that laryngeal videostroboscopy alone continues to be the modality of choice for imaging vocal fold vibration, but technological advancements in HSV and associated research findings are driving increased interest in the clinical adoption of HSV to complement videostroboscopic assessment

Mendelsohn et al (2013) stated that although high-speed imaging (HSI) has been identified as a valuable tool in phonatory biomechanics research, to-date, there have only been a selected number of reports investigating the clinical utility of HSI.  These researchers examined the role of HSI in the diagnosis of the dysphonic patient.  The video files from 28 consecutive dysphonic patients with concurrently acquired videostroboscopy and HSI were retrospectively collected.  Stroboscopy video files were edited to include vibratory motion only.  Videos were then anonymously and randomly presented to 4 academic laryngologists.  Experts were asked to assign a single best diagnosis for each video file.  Assigned diagnoses were then compared with treatment diagnoses conferred based on medical history, phonatory evaluation, laryngeal examination, and response to treatment.  Inter-rater analysis for the 4 laryngologists demonstrated significant and meaningful correlations for the diagnoses of polyps, cysts, nodules, and normal examination using stroboscopy (kappa > 0.40, p < 0.001).  The experts demonstrated significant and meaningful correlations for the diagnoses of polyps, presbyphonia, and normal examination using HSI (kappa > 0.40, p < 0.001).  Combined intra-rater analysis performed by comparing single rater's diagnosis for single patient across both modalities resulted in poor correlation without statistical significance (kappa = 0.30, p = 0.07).  Both stroboscopy- and HSI-assigned diagnoses matched the treatment diagnoses at equal predicted frequencies (32.3 %), as demonstrated through multi-variate logistic regression analysis (p < 0.001).  The authors concluded that overall HSI did not improve the diagnostic accuracy above stroboscopy alone.  Moreover, they stated that although specific laryngeal states such as presbyphonia may be better diagnosed with HSI, further studies are needed to define HSI's precise role in the clinical setting.

Assessment of Non-Invasive Vocal Cord Lesions (Cysts, Nodules, and Polyps)

Mehlum and colleagues (2016) stated that correct assessment of patients with a glottic lesion is crucial for ensuring proper treatment in cases of cancer or pre-malignancy and for avoiding unnecessary surgery.  For years, videostroboscopy (VS) has been the gold standard for assessing such lesions, but diagnostic difficulties have been described.  These researchers estimated the diagnostic accuracy of VS in differentiating early glottic cancer from non-invasive lesions by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.  PubMed and Embase databases were searched without restrictions on publication date.  A systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement.  These investigators systematically searched the literature for publications on stroboscopic diagnosis of cancer or pre-malignant lesions on the vocal cords.  All retrieved studies were reviewed and qualitatively assessed.  The pooled sensitivity and specificity of VS were calculated, and bubble and summary receiver operating characteristics plots were created.  A meta-analysis was conducted on 5 studies with a total of 307 patients.  The sensitivities of VS within the single studies ranged from 86 % to 100 % and specificities ranged from 7 % to 93 %.  The meta-analysis showed that the sensitivity of the combined results was 0.96 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 0.98), and the specificity was 0.65 (95 % CI: 0.21 to 0.93).  The authors concluded that VS is able to identify almost all patients with cancer, but only approximately 2/3 of patients with non-invasive lesions are correctly identified as not having cancer.  They stated that further research concerning assessment of patients with vocal cord lesions is needed.

Syamal and Benninger (2016) stated that vocal fold paresis is a complex, controversial, and unique clinical entity.  These investigators provided guidance in assessing and evaluating these patients in this comprehensive review of the current literature and discussed the varying clinical presentation, the broad differential and general prognosis.  Patients with vocal fold paresis can present with elements of hyper-function, which can often mask an underlying paresis.  As such, repetitive phonatory tasks and videostroboscopic examination are critical for the assessment of patients with a suspected paresis.  When analyzing stroboscopic findings, anatomical and motion asymmetries can strongly suggest the presence of a paresis.  However, it is important to remember that other disorders can sometimes mimic or create a visual asymmetry when a true paresis may not be present.  Laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) can serve as a valuable adjunct to confirm a paresis with the most reliable indicator being a decreased recruitment pattern.  The differential is vast, including infectious, iatrogenic, systemic rheumatologic, and neurologic conditions; LEMG along with time of onset and the underlying cause of the paresis can be valuable prognostic indicators.  The authors concluded that patients with paresis often present with symptoms of a hyperkinetic voice disorder.  They noted that regardless of the myriad of causes, their assessment hinges upon close clinical evaluation with videostroboscopy aided with LEMG.


References

The above policy is based on the following references:

  1. Alonso EP, Gonzalez IV, Teno MG, et al. Early glottic tumours with anterior commissure involvement. Literature review and consensus document. Head and Neck and Skull Base Commission, SEORL-CCC. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2020;71 Suppl 1:1-20.
  2. Bless DM, Hirano M, Feder RJ. Videostroboscopic evaluation of the larynx. ENT Journal. 1987;66(7):289-296.
  3. Bryson PC. Stroboscopy. eMedicine Surgery. New York, NY: Medscape: Updated April 30, 2012.
  4. Campagnolo AM, Benninger MS, Priston P, Assuncao A. Dysphonia in performers: Prevalence of vocal lesions and voice emergencies in a private otorhinolaryngology practice. J Voice. 2021 Mar 27 [Online ahead of print].
  5. Casiano RR, Zaveri V, Lundy DS. Efficacy of videostroboscopy in the diagnosis of voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992;107(1):95-100.
  6. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, et al. A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;258(2):77-82.
  7. Dejonckere PH. Perceptual and laboratory assessment of dysphonia. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2000;33(4):731-750.
  8. El-Demerdash A, Fawaz SA, Sabri SM, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of stroboscopy in preoperative differentiation of dysplasia from early invasive glottic carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(5):1189-1193.
  9. Grøntved AM, Faber CE, Jakobsen J. Assessment of thyroplasty for vocal fold paralysis. Ugeskr Laeger. 2009;171(3):117-121.
  10. Hartl DM, Hans S, Crevier Buchman L, et al. Dysphonia: Current methods of evaluation. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac. 2005;122(4):163-172.
  11. Kazi R, Rhys-Evans P, Nutting CM, Harrington KJ. The great debate: Stroboscopy vs high-speed imaging for assessment of alaryngeal phonation. J Cancer Res Ther. 2009;5(2):121-123.
  12. Krishnan NV, Pujary K, Bhandarkar AM, et al. Videostroboscopy and voice profile in long-term combination inhaler users with obstructive lower airway disease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;166(5):927-932.
  13. Marciscano AE, Charu V, Starmer HM, et al. Evaluating post-radiotherapy laryngeal function with laryngeal videostroboscopy in early stage glottic cancer. Front Oncol. 2017;7:124.
  14. Mehlum CS, Rosenberg T, Groentved AM, et al. Can videostroboscopy predict early glottic cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(9):2079-2084.
  15. Mehta DD, Hillman RE. Current role of stroboscopy in laryngeal imaging. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;20(6):429-436.
  16. Mendelsohn AH, Remacle M, Courey MS, et al. The diagnostic role of high-speed vocal fold vibratory imaging. J Voice. 2013;27(5):627-631.
  17. Mobarsa V, Samdani SK, Gurjar VS, et al. Outcome analysis of microlaryngeal surgery for benign lesions of vocal cord using videostroboscopy and voice handicap index. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;71(Suppl 1):327-332.
  18. Nospes S, Kuhr K, Napiontek U, Keilmann A. Stroboscopy findings: A comparison of flexible CCD-videostroboscopy and rigid stroboscopy. Laryngorhinootologie. 2011;90(4):218-223.
  19. Omori K, Kacker A, Slavit DH, Blaugrund SM. Quantitative videostroboscopic measurement of glottal gap and vocal function: An analysis of thyroplasty type I. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1996;105(4):280-285.
  20. Powell ME, Deliyski DD, Hillman RE, et al. Comparison of videostroboscopy to stroboscopy derived from high-speed videoendoscopy for evaluating patients with vocal fold mass lesions. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016;25(4):576-589.
  21. Powell ME, Deliyski DD, Zeitels SM, et al. Efficacy of videostroboscopy and high-speed videoendoscopy to obtain functional outcomes from perioperative ratings in patients with vocal fold mass lesions. J Voice. 2020;34(5):769-782.
  22. Remacle M. The contribution of videostroboscopy in daily ENT practice. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg. 1996;50(4):265-281.
  23. Rihkanen H, Reijonen P, Lehikoinen-Soderlund S, Lauri ER. Videostroboscopic assessment of unilateral vocal fold paralysis after augmentation with autologous fascia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;261(4):177-183.
  24. Rosen CA, Murry T. Diagnostic laryngeal endoscopy. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2000;33(4):751-758.
  25. Rzepakowska A, Sielska-Badurek E, Osuch-Wójcikiewicz E, et al. The predictive value of videostroboscopy in the assessment of premalignant lesions and early glottis cancers. Otolaryngol Pol. 2017;71(4):14-18.
  26. Sataloff RT, Spiegel JR, Hawkshaw MJ. Strobovideolaryngoscopy: Results and clinical value. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991;100(9 Pt 1):725-727.
  27. Schneider B, Wendler J, Seidner W. The relevance of stroboscopy in functional dysphonias(1). Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2002;54(1):44-54.
  28. Sercarz JA, Berke GS, Ming Y, et al. Videostroboscopy of human vocal fold paralysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1992;101(7):567-577.
  29. Shinghal T, Low A, Russell L, et al. High-speed video or video stroboscopy in adolescents: Which sheds more light? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(6):1041-1045.
  30. Shohet JA, Courey MS, Scott MA, Ossoff RH. Value of videostroboscopic parameters in differentiating true vocal fold cysts from polyps. Laryngoscope. 1996;106(1 Pt 1):19-26.
  31. Singh A, Kazi R, Venkitaraman R, et al. Does flexible videostroboscopy compare with rigid videostroboscopy in the assessment of the neoglottis? A preliminary report. Clin Otolaryngol. 2008;33(1):60-63.
  32. Syamal MN, Benninger MS. Vocal fold paresis: A review of clinical presentation, differential diagnosis, and prognostic indicators. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;24(3):197-202.
  33. Verikas A, Uloza V, Bacauskiene M, et al. Advances in laryngeal imaging. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(10):1509-1520.
  34. Yanagisawa K, Yanagisawa E. Techniques of endoscopic imaging of the larynx. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;4:147-153.
  35. Youssef G, Mahboub B-H, Azab S-N. Laryngeal and voice disorders in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;33(115):97-102.
  36. Zacharias SR, Myer CM 4th, Meinzen-Derr J, et al. Comparison of videostroboscopy and high-speed videoendoscopy in evaluation of supraglottic phonation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016;125(10):829-837.