Advertisement

The Association of Objective Voice Measurement With Treatment of Vocal Fold Masses

Published:October 28, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.09.028

      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 access
      One-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 Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Altman KW.
        Vocal fold masses.
        Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2007; 40 (viii): 1091-1108https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2007.05.011
        • Yeakel H
        • Balouch B
        • Schmitz J
        • et al.
        Gender differences in vocal fold mass treatment.
        J Voice. 2021; (Published online November 28)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.10.002
        • Naunheim MR
        • Carroll TL.
        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
        • Rosen CA
        • Gartner-Schmidt J
        • Hathaway B
        • et al.
        A nomenclature paradigm for benign midmembranous vocal fold lesions.
        Laryngoscope. 2012; 122: 1335-1341https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.22421
        • Stachler RJ
        • Francis DO
        • Schwartz SR
        • et al.
        Clinical practice guideline: hoarseness (dysphonia) (update).
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018; 158: S1-S42https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599817751030
        • van Stan JH
        • Roy N
        • Awan S
        • et al.
        A taxonomy of voice therapy.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015; 24: 101-125https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0030
        • van Leer E
        • Connor NP.
        Patient perceptions of voice therapy adherence.
        J Voice. 2010; 24: 458-469https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.009
        • Mansuri B
        • Tohidast SA
        • Soltaninejad N
        • et al.
        Nonmedical treatments of vocal fold nodules: a systematic review.
        J Voice. 2018; 32: 609-620https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.08.023
        • Jonathan Romak
        • Heuer R
        • Hawkshaw M
        • et al.
        Objective voice measures.
        Fourth Edition. Professional Voice: The Science and Art of Clinical Care. Vol I. Plural Publishing, San Diego, CA2017 (419-419)
        • 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: 388-392https://doi.org/10.3950/jibiinkoka.93.388
        • Hirano M
        • Tanaka S
        • Fujita M
        • et al.
        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
        • Martinez-Paredes JF
        • Menton SM
        • Thompson CC
        • et al.
        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
        • Baken RJ
        • Orlikoff RF
        The S/Z ratio.
        Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. Second Edition. Singular Thomson Learning, San Diego, CA2000: 373-375
        • Baken RJ
        • Orlikoff RF.
        Maximum phonation time.
        Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. Second Edition. Singular Thomson Learning, San Diego, CA2000: 367-373
        • Heman-Ackah YD
        • Heuer RJ
        • Michael DD
        • et al.
        Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2003; 112: 324-333https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940311200406
        • Zhuge P
        • You H
        • Wang H
        • et al.
        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
        • Eckel FC
        • Boone DR.
        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
        • Lane M
        • Ives GC
        • Sluiter EC
        • et al.
        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
        • Safer JD.
        Research gaps in medical treatment of transgender/nonbinary people.
        J Clin Investigat. 2021; 131https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI142029
        • Karkos PD
        • McCormick M.
        The etiology of vocal fold nodules in adults.
        Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009; 17: 420-423https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0b013e328331a7f8
        • Akbulut S
        • Gartner-Schmidt JL
        • Gillespie AI
        • et al.
        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