Summary
Objectives/Hypothesis
To determine the predictive value of objective voice measurements in patients with
vocal fold masses for receiving medical or surgical management.
Study Design
Retrospective chart review.
Methods
Patients presented from January 2015 through March 2020 and diagnosed with vocal fold
mass. Objective voice measurements studied were average fundamental frequency, jitter
percent, relative average perturbation, shimmer percent, noise to harmonic ratio,
standard deviation of fundamental frequency, maximum phonation time, and S:Z ratio.
Non-parametric Mann Whitney U test, chi square and fisher exact test were used.
Results
Ninety-six patients (48 male and 48 female) were included. Males who received surgical
management (MS) had significantly higher jitter percent (1.82 ± 1.34) than males who
received medical management (MM) (1.16 ± 19.21), P = 0.02. Furthermore, MS had significantly higher relative average perturbation percent
(1.06 ± 0.78) than MM (0.68 ± 0.57), P = 0.03. Females who received surgical management had significantly lower shimmer
percent (3.74 ± 2.88) than females who received medical management (4.66 ± 2.42),
P = 0.01. Univariate significance was found in some female confounding variables. A
logistic regression model did not show significance.
Conclusion
Males with high jitter percent and relative average perturbation are more likely to
receive surgical management for vocal fold masses. Females with lower shimmer percent
are more likely to have surgical management of vocal fold masses when compared to
the medical management group. Objective voice measures did not show significant predictive
value when controlled for confounding variables.
Key Words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Vocal fold masses.Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2007; 40 (viii): 1091-1108https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2007.05.011
- Gender differences in vocal fold mass treatment.J Voice. 2021; (Published online November 28)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.10.002
- Benign vocal fold lesions: update on nomenclature, cause, diagnosis, and treatment.Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; 25: 453-458https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000408
- A nomenclature paradigm for benign midmembranous vocal fold lesions.Laryngoscope. 2012; 122: 1335-1341https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.22421
- Clinical practice guideline: hoarseness (dysphonia) (update).Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018; 158: S1-S42https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817751030
- A taxonomy of voice therapy.Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015; 24: 101-125https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0030
- Patient perceptions of voice therapy adherence.J Voice. 2010; 24: 458-469https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.009
- Nonmedical treatments of vocal fold nodules: a systematic review.J Voice. 2018; 32: 609-620https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.08.023
- Objective voice measures.Fourth Edition. Professional Voice: The Science and Art of Clinical Care. Vol I. Plural Publishing, San Diego, CA2017 (419-419)
- [Relationships between the degree of lesion and that of vocal dysfunction in vocal fold polyp].Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 1990; 93: 388-392https://doi.org/10.3950/jibiinkoka.93.388
- Fundamental frequency and sound pressure level of phonation in pathological states.J Voice. 1991; 5: 120-127https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80176-6
- Evaluation of size, laterality, and location of unilateral vocal fold lesions on voice quality.J Voice. 2021; (Published online)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.09.013
- The S/Z ratio.Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. Second Edition. Singular Thomson Learning, San Diego, CA2000: 373-375
- Maximum phonation time.Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. Second Edition. Singular Thomson Learning, San Diego, CA2000: 367-373
- Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940311200406
- An Analysis of the effects of voice therapy on patients with early vocal fold polyps.J Voice. 2016; 30: 698-704https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.08.013
- The S/Z ratio as an indicator of laryngeal pathology.J Speech Hear Disord. 1981; 46: 147-149https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4602.147
- Trends in gender-affirming surgery in insured patients in the United States.Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018; 6: e1738https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001738
- Research gaps in medical treatment of transgender/nonbinary people.J Clin Investigat. 2021; 131https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI142029
- The etiology of vocal fold nodules in adults.Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009; 17: 420-423https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0b013e328331a7f8
- Voice outcomes following treatment of benign midmembranous vocal fold lesions using a nomenclature paradigm.Laryngoscope. 2016; 126: 415-420https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25488
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 28, 2022
Accepted:
September 29,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
Declarations of interest: none
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
