International Journal of Phonosurgery & Laryngology

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparison of Voice Handicap Index Scores and Treatment Outcomes Between Professional and Non-professional Voice Users with Hoarseness

Surya Sureshkumar, Unnikrishnan K Menon

Keywords : Hoarseness, Microlaryngeal surgery, Professional voice user, Voice handicap index (VHI) 30

Citation Information : Sureshkumar S, Menon UK. Comparison of Voice Handicap Index Scores and Treatment Outcomes Between Professional and Non-professional Voice Users with Hoarseness. Int J Phonosurg Laryngol 2018; 8 (1):1-5.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10023-1150

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-06-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: Hoarseness can affect the normal day to day life of people, as the ability to speak is one of the factors which makes us humans superior to other living beings. It is essential for effective communication and reflects one\'s personality. For some, voice forms the mainstay of their profession. Voice handicap index scores (VHI 30) is a self-assessment questionnaire which evaluates the level of handicap caused due to hoarseness. Patients were divided into groups of professional and non-professional voice users, and after appropriate treatment, the VHI scores were compared between the two. It may be assumed that the professional voice user would fare worse at a certain point of time after treatment. Objective: To compare the VHI 30 score and other voice parameters, and the pathological characteristics of laryngeal lesions between professional and non-professional voice users with hoarseness due to benign laryngeal pathologies, at 6 months posttreatment. Materials and methods: Evaluation results including the VHI 30 score were obtained from 46 patients in both the groups (selected as per inclusion-exclusion criteria). These were compared between pretreatment and 6 months posttreatment status. Chi-square test was used to compare between males and females. Independent sample t-test was used to compare the VHI scores, VHI change, shimmer, F0, contact quotient (CQ) and age between groups P and N. Mann–Whitney test was used to compare jitter between groups P and N. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc correction was used to compare the change in the VHI score at time points in groups P and N. Results: Our study was done in 46 adult patients in each group (professional group–group P and non-professional group–group N). The mean VHI score pretreatment in group P was 52.3 and 25.6 after 6 months of treatment. In group N, the pretreatment value was 52.1 and posttreatment was 22.3. Comparing the mean difference of VHI score between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference (p-value 0.319). Comparison of rest of the voice parameters also showed no statistically significant difference. Maximum phonation duration (MPD) p-value 0.319; Jitter p-value 0.173, Shimmer p-value 0.313, F0 p-value 0.893, CQ p-value 0.225). Vocal nodule was found to be having higher incidence (65.2% and 60.9% in groups P and N respectively), followed by vocal cord polyp (23.9% and 17.4% in sroups P and N respectively), and vocal fold cyst (10.9% and 21.7% in groups P and N respectively) without an statistically significant difference between both the groups (p-value 0.314) Conclusion: There is no statistically significant difference in posttreatment VHI score, other voice parameters and the characteristics of laryngeal pathologies between the two groups, but the non-professional group showed more improvement numerically irrespective of the nature of treatment availed.


PDF Share
  1. Gleeson MJ, Clarke RC, editors. Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery 7 Ed: 3 volume set. CRC Press; 2008 Apr 25.
  2. Garcia M. Observations on the human voice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 1856 Jan 1;7:399-410.
  3. Hirano M. Morphological structure of the vocal cord as a vibrator and its variations. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 1974;26(2):89-94.
  4. Martins RH, Pereira ER, Hidalgo CB, Tavares EL. Voice disorders in teachers. A review. Journal of Voice. 2014;28(6): 716-724.
  5. Hunter EJ, Tanner K, Smith ME. Gender differences affecting vocal health of women in vo-cally demanding careers. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology. 2011 Oct 1;36(3):128-136.
  6. Dikkers FG, Nikkels PG. Benign lesions of the vocal folds: histopathology and phonotrauma. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. 1995 Sep;104 (9):698-703.
  7. Mehta DD, Hillman RE. Current role of stroboscopy in laryngeal imaging. Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery. 2012;20(6):429.
  8. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier- Buchman L, Friedrich G, et al. A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evalu-ating new assessment techniques. European Archives of Oto-rhinolaryngology. 2001 Feb 8;258(2):77-82.
  9. Maertens K, de Jong FI. The voice handicap index as a tool for assessment of the biopsychosocial impact of voice problems. B-ent. 2007;3(2):61-66.
  10. Spina AL, Maunsell R, Sandalo K, Gusmão R, Crespo A. Correlation between voice and life quality and occupation. Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 2009 Apr 30;75(2):275-279.
  11. Cheng J. Correlation between the Voice Handicap Index and voice laboratory measurements after phonosurgery. Ear, Nose & Throat Journal. 2010 Apr 1;89(4):183.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.