Evaluation of Size, Laterality, and Location of Unilateral Vocal Fold Lesions on Voice Quality

Published:November 02, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.09.013

      Summary

      Introduction

      The presence of a vocal fold mass implies high mechanical stress at the vocal fold base during vibration and an impaired glottic closure. However, evidence about its potential effects on diagnostic tools used in voice evaluation is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the location, laterality, and size of a unilateral unique vocal fold lesion on patient self-assessment questionnaires, acoustic-aerodynamic voice measures, and perceptual voice evaluation (GRBAS scale).

      Methods

      A retrospective chart review involving patients with a diagnosis of a unique unilateral vocal fold lesion and a complete voice evaluation was performed. A total of 58 patients were enrolled and demographics, characteristics of the vocal fold lesion (size, laterality, and location), self-assessment questionnaires, acoustic-aerodynamic measures, and perceptual evaluation (GRBAS scale) were analyzed. Pearson correlation and ANOVA analysis were completed to evaluate the correlation between the clinical characteristics of the vocal fold mass and self-assessment questionnaires, and to compare the level of significance for the differences between the continuous variables between groups of patients once stratified according to the location or laterality of the vocal fold mass.

      Results

      Glottal Function Index was found to correlate with the location of the vocal fold mass (P < 0.05), however, no correlation was found when evaluating the Reflux Symptom Index or the Voice Handicap Index (P > 0.05). Patients with a lesion located in the anterior-middle 2/3 of the vocal fold were found to have a higher mean Glottal Function Index and (G) component of the GRBAS scale (P < 0.05). No differences were observed when analyzing the remaining self-assessment questionnaires or the acoustic-aerodynamic voice measures according to size, location, or laterality of the vocal fold lesion (P > 0.05).

      Conclusion

      The size and location of unilateral vocal fold lesions were found to have no effect on the majority of measures analyzed in this study. This is the first study we know of to assess the effect that laterality of the vocal fold lesion may have on the self-assessment questionnaires, audio-perceptual, and acoustic-aerodynamic measures included in this study. Our study found no significant differences in regard to laterality. This may indicate that other factors (eg, stiffness of lesion, amount of extraneous muscle tension, etc) could have more of an impact on audio-perceptual, self-assessment questionnaires, and acoustic-aerodynamic measures. Further research with larger cohort sizes and possibly prospective analysis is needed.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Roy N
        • Merrill RM
        • Gray SD
        • et al.
        Voice disorders in the general population: prevalence, risk factors, and occupational impact.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 1988-1995
        • Roy N
        • Merrill RM
        • Thibeault S
        • et al.
        Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004; 47: 281-293
        • Tafiadis D
        • Helidoni ME
        • Chronopoulos SK
        • et al.
        The hellenic voice handicap index of different laryngeal mass lesions: a receiver-operating characteristic analysis.
        J Voice. 2020; 34 (966.e961-966.e910)
        • Altman KW.
        Vocal fold masses.
        Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2007; 40: 1091-1108
        • Martinez Paredes JF
        • Thompson CC
        • Rutt AL
        Laryngeal manifestations of intractable singultus.
        Cureus. 2021; 13 (e13730-e13730)
        • Bradely PJ.
        Arytenoid granuloma.
        J Laryngol Otol. 1997; 111: 801-803
        • Gonzalez J
        • Carpi A.
        Early effects of smoking on the voice: a multidimensional study.
        Med Sci Monit. 2004; 10 (Cr649-656)
        • Kramer IR
        • Lucas RB
        • Pindborg JJ
        • et al.
        Definition of leukoplakia and related lesions: an aid to studies on oral precancer.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1978; 46: 518-539
        • Garnett JD.
        Tobacco and laryngeal pathology.
        W V Med J. 2001; 97: 13-16
        • Öcal B
        • Tatar E
        • Toptaş G
        • et al.
        Evaluation of voice quality in patients with vocal fold polyps: the size of a polyp matters or does it?.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 294-299
        • Jiang JJ
        • Diaz CE
        • Hanson DG.
        Finite element modeling of vocal fold vibration in normal phonation and hyperfunctional dysphonia: implications for the pathogenesis of vocal nodules.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1998; 107: 603-610
        • Petrović-Lazić M
        • Babac S
        • Vuković M
        • et al.
        Acoustic voice analysis of patients with vocal fold polyp.
        J Voice. 2011; 25: 94-97
        • Echternach M
        • Raschka J
        • Kuranova L
        • et al.
        Immediate effects of water resistance therapy on patients with vocal fold mass lesions.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; 277: 1995-2003
        • Cipriani NA
        • Martin DE
        • Corey JP
        • et al.
        The clinicopathologic spectrum of benign mass lesions of the vocal fold due to vocal abuse.
        Int J Surg Pathol. 2011; 19: 583-587
        • Dursun G
        • Karatayli-Ozgursoy S
        • Ozgursoy OB
        • et al.
        Influence of the macroscopic features of vocal fold polyps on the quality of voice: a retrospective review of 101 cases.
        Ear Nose Throat J. 2010; 89: E12-E17
        • Uloza V
        • Kaseta M
        • Pribuisiene R
        • et al.
        Quantitative microlaryngoscopic measurements of vocal fold polyps, glottal gap and their relation to vocal function.
        Medicina (Kaunas). 2008; 44: 266-272
        • Sanada T
        • Tanaka S
        • Hibi S
        • et al.
        [Relationships between the degree of lesion and that of vocal dysfunction in vocal fold polyp].
        Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 1990; 93: 388-392
        • Yiu EM
        • Lau VC
        • Ma EP
        • et al.
        Reliability of laryngostroboscopic evaluation on lesion size and glottal configuration: a revisit.
        Laryngoscope. 2014; 124: 1638-1644
        • Jacobson BH
        • Johnson A
        • Grywalski C
        • et al.
        The Voice Handicap Index (VHI).
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997; 6: 66-70
        • Umeno H
        • Hyodo M
        • Haji T
        • et al.
        A summary of the clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of voice disorders, 2018 in Japan.
        Auris Nasus Larynx. 2020; 47: 7-17
        • Arffa RE
        • Krishna P
        • Gartner-Schmidt J
        • et al.
        Normative values for the Voice Handicap Index-10.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 462-465
        • Bach KK
        • Belafsky PC
        • Wasylik K
        • et al.
        Validity and reliability of the glottal function index.
        Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005; 131: 961-964
        • Pribuisiene R
        • Pribuisis K
        • Liutkevicius V
        • et al.
        Glottal function index questionnaire for screening of pediatric dysphonia.
        Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 123: 97-101
        • Cho KJ
        • Nam IC
        • Hwang YS
        • et al.
        Analysis of factors influencing voice quality and therapeutic approaches in vocal polyp patients.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 268: 1321-1327
        • Zhukhovitskaya A
        • Battaglia D
        • Khosla SM
        • et al.
        Gender and age in benign vocal fold lesions.
        Laryngoscope. 2015; 125: 191-196https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24911