Informed consent for suspension microlaryngoscopy: what should we tell the patient? A consensus statement of the European Laryngological Society

Frederik G. Dikkers, Michel R. M. San Giorgi, Rico N. P. M. Rinkel, Marc Remacle, Antoine Giovanni, Małgorzata Wierzbicka, Riaz Seedat, Guillermo Campos, Guri S. Sandhu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


Introduction: Informed consent for any surgical intervention is necessary, as only well-informed patients can actively participate in the decision-making process about their care, and better understand the likely or potential outcomes of their treatment. No consensus exists on informed consent for suspension microlaryngoscopy (SML). Materials and methods: Informed consent procedures in nine countries on five continents were studied. Results: Several risks can be discerned: risks of SML as procedure, anesthesiologic risks of SML, specific risks of phonosurgery, risks of inadequate glottic exposure or unexpected findings, risks of not treating. SML has recognized potential complications, that can be divided in temporary (minor) complications, and lasting (major) complications. Conclusion: SML is a safe procedure with low morbidity, and virtually no mortality. Eleven recommendations are provided.


  • Benign laryngeal pathology
  • Consent discussion
  • Consent process
  • Elective suspension microlaryngoscopy
  • Health care provider
  • Informed consent
  • Phonosurgery
  • Quality modern health service
  • Shared decision-making

Cite this