SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2018 ) > List of Articles
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.
License: CC BY-NC 3.0
Published Online: 01-06-2018
Copyright Statement: Copyright © 2018 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.
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.
© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.