International Journal of Phonosurgery & Laryngology

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Outcome Analysis in Patients with Benign Vocal Fold Lesions

Arpit Sharma, Jyoti Dabholkar, Nitish Virmani

Citation Information : Sharma A, Dabholkar J, Virmani N. Outcome Analysis in Patients with Benign Vocal Fold Lesions. Int J Phonosurg Laryngol 2016; 6 (1):8-13.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10023-1111

Published Online: 01-03-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction

Benign vocal cord lesions cause significant dysphonia by disrupting the normal vibratory function of the vocal fold mucosa. Multidimensional assessment of voice characteristics allows for an accurate analysis of voice impairment and can be used to assess the outcome of different treatment modalities.

Aims

To evaluate the outcome in patients treated for benign vocal fold lesions using multidimensional voice assessment

Materials and methods

Thirty adult patients with benign vocal fold lesions were treated according to standard protocols and followed up for 6 months. Voice was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS), GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain) scale, maximum phonation time (MPT), S/Z ratio, and acoustic parameters using PRAAT. Pre- and posttreatment voice was compared.

Results

Benign lesions observed were vocal polyps (16), vocal nodules (7), vocal fold cysts (5), vocal cord papilloma (1), and sulcus vocalis (1). Mean VAS rating improved from 7.5 to 2 at 3 months and 1.6 at 6 months. Mean GRBAS score improved from 7.5 to 2.96 at 3 months and 2.3 at 6 months. Maximum phonation time increased from 9.43 seconds to 14.16 seconds at 3 months and 14.46 seconds at 6 months. S/Z ratio reduced from 1.37 to 1.16 at 3 months and 1.15 at 6 months. Jitter reduced from 1.81 to 1% at 3 months and 0.97% at 6 months; shimmer decreased from 6.07 to 2.19% at 3 months and to 2.03% at 6 months. Harmonic-to-noise ratio values improved from 8.01 to 10.78 dB at 3 months and 10.96 dB at 6 months; mean F0 increased from 207.27 to 217.89 Hz at 3 months and 219.65 Hz at 6 months.

Conclusion

A single measurement of voice cannot be used as a reliable outcome measure. Perceptual, aerodynamic, acoustic, and self-analysis together allow a multidimensional assessment of voice characteristics.

How to cite this article

Virmani N, Sharma A, Dabholkar J. Outcome Analysis in Patients with Benign Vocal Fold Lesions. Int J Phonosurg Laryngol 2016;6(1):8-13.

PDF Share
  1. Benign vocal fold mucosal disorders. In: Cummings otolaryngology head and neck surgery. 4th ed. Vol. 3. Philadelphia (PA): Mosby; 2005. p. 2150.
  2. PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 2001 Nov-Dec;5(9/10):341-345.
  3. PRAAT: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.68 [retrieved 2014 Mar 20]. Available from: http://www.praat.org/.
  4. Inquadramento delle disfonie. In: Casolino D, editor. Le disfonie: fisiopatologia clinica ed aspetti medico-legali. Pisa: Pacini Editore; 2002. p. 97-116.
  5. Muscle misuse voice disorders: Description and classification. Acta Otolaryngol 1993 May;113(3):428-432.
  6. Efficacy of a behaviourally based voice therapy protocol for vocal nodules. J Voice 2001 Sep;15(3):395-412.
  7. Benign vocal fold mucosal disorders. In: Flint PW, Haughey BH, Lund VJ, Niparko JK, Richardson MA, Robbins KT, Thomas JR, editors Cummings Otolaryngology: Head and neck surgery. 5th ed. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby/Elsevier; 2010. p. 859-882.
  8. Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). 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 Feb;258(2):77-82.
  9. Voice handicap index change following treatment of voice disorders. J Voice 2000 Dec;14(4):619-623.
  10. Outcome analysis of benign vocal cord lesions by videostroboscopy, acoustic analysis and voice handicap index. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007 Dec;59(4):336-340.
  11. Radiophonosurgery of benign superficial vocal fold lesions. J Laryngol Otol 2005 Dec;119(12):961-966.
  12. Perceptual and acoustic assessment of voice pathology and the efficacy of endolaryngeal phonomicrosurgery. J Voice 2005 Mar;19(1):138-145.
  13. Automatic assessment of voice quality according to the GRBAS scale. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2006;1:2478-2481.
  14. Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: Development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2009 May;18(2):124-132.
  15. Phonomicrosurgery for benign vocal Fold lesions – our experience. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003 Jul;55(3):184-186.
  16. MDVF manual version 2.7.0. Lincoln Park (NJ): Kay Elemetrics; 1993.
  17. Acoustic correlates of dysphonia: Type and severity. J Commun Disorder 1997 Sep-Oct;30(5):403-415.
  18. Objective assessment of hoarseness by measuring jitter. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2001 Feb;26(1):29-32.
  19. Understanding voice problems: a physiological perspective for diagnosis and treatment. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
  20. Harmonics-to-noise ratio as an index of the degree of hoarseness. J Acoust Soc Am 1982 Jun;71(6):1544-1549.
  21. The s/z ratio as an indicator of laryngeal pathology. J Speech Hear Disord 1981 May;46(2):147-149.
  22. Objective voice analysis for vocal polyps following microlaryngeal phonosurgery. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2010 Apr-Jun;8(30):185-189.
  23. A longitudinal study of voice before and after phonosurgery for removal of a polyp. Clin Linguist Phon 2008 Oct-Nov;22(10-11):857-863.
  24. Acoustic voice analysis of patients with vocal fold polyp. J Voice 2011 Jan;25(1):94-97.
  25. Comparison of the results of voice handicap index and computer-assisted voice analysis in patients with benign vocal cord lesions before and after microlaryngeal surgery. Korean J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005 Mar;48(3):380-386.
  26. Objective analysis of voice after microlaryngoscopic surgery in patients with vocal Polyps at different anatomical sites. J Med Sci 2007;27(6):265-270.
  27. Voice parameters and videonasolaryngoscopy in children with vocal nodules: A longitudinal study, before and after voice therapy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012 Sep;76(9):1361-1365.
  28. Changes after voice therapy in objective and subjective voice measurements of pediatric patients with vocal nodules. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009 Dec;266(12):1923-1927.
  29. Changes in sustained production tasks among women with bilateral vocal nodules before and after voice therapy. J Voice 1997 Dec;11(4):462-469.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.