[Skip to Navigation]
February 1972


Author Affiliations

Kommunehospitalet 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark

Arch Otolaryngol. 1972;95(2):193. doi:10.1001/archotol.1972.00770080281027

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


I wish to thank Dr. Stell for his comment on, and persistent interest in, my paper on transconioscopy. I agree that it is important to stress the drawbacks of this method of examination as well as its advantages.

It seems that the subglottis extent of glottic cancer is of considerable prognostic significance, especially if the extent of the tumor has not been determined from the beginning. A presupposition for the improvement of the prognosis is the recognition of the size and localization of the cancer, and to this purpose transconioscopy is suitable.

The risk of peristomal recurrence carried by the examination has to be related to the risk of overlooking a subglottic tumor. Therefore, it is, in my opinion, not reasonable to compare transconioscopy with preoperative tracheotomy, which in most cases—also in those described in the papers cited by Dr. Stell—has to be carried out owing to obstruction caused

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
Add or change institution