ABSTRACT
Background: Previous studies have assessed the capability of PRAAT for acoustic voice analysis in total laryngectomized (TL) patients, although this software was designed for acoustic analysis of laryngeal voice. Recently, we have witnessed the development of specialized acoustic analysis software, Tracheoesophageal Voice Analysis (TEVA). This study aims to compare the analysis with both programs in TL patients. Methods: Observational analytical study of 34 TL patients where a quantitative acoustic analysis was performed for stable phonation with vowels [a] and [i] as well as spectrographic characterization using the TEVA and PRAAT software. Results: The Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10) showed a mean score of 11.29 ± 11.16 points, categorized as a moderate handicap. TEVA analysis found lower values in the fundamental frequency vs. PRAAT (p < 0.05). A significant increase in shimmer values was observed with TEVA (>20%). No significant differences were found between spectrographic analysis with TEVA and PRAAT. Conclusions: Tracheoesophageal speech is an alaryngeal voice, characterized by a higher degree of irregularity and noise compared to laryngeal speech. Consequently, it necessitates a more tailored approach using objective assessment tools adapted to these distinct features, like TEVA, that are designed specifically for TL patients. This study provides statistical evidence supporting its reliability and suitability for the evaluation and tracking of tracheoesophageal speakers.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Voice with tracheoesophageal speech (TES) is an effective, widely recognized option to restore the ability of oral communication to laryngectomized patients. In this study, we try to characterize the TES, taking account different variables and making an acoustic analysis of voice with TES versus laryngeal voice (LV). METHODS: We compare different acoustic and subjective variables like GRABS or VHI in 34 patients with TES and 31 controls with LV. RESULTS: Patients with TES reach a good quality of voice with F0, F1, F2, F3, Jitter, Shimmer, and Yanahigara test similar to control group. Furthermore, the subjective scales show a good perception of voice for patients and examiners. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with tracheoesophageal voices show acceptable voice results, in many cases reaching to be near to controls with LV.
Subject(s)
Laryngeal Neoplasms , Larynx, Artificial , Humans , Laryngectomy/adverse effects , Speech , Voice Quality , Acoustics , Laryngeal Neoplasms/surgeryABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (RFL) is diagnosed by the presence of laryngeal signs and symptoms. Some studies have noted that signs and symptoms may be non- specific and may have poor correlation. The goal of this study was to assess correlation of the reflux finding score (RFS) and reflux symptom index (RSI) as a fibroendoscopic assessment protocol. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A sample of 34 consecutive volunteers with no prior history of voice disorders were enrolled. All completed a self-administered laryngeal symptom questionnaire (amended RSI) and underwent a comprehensive transnasal fiberoptic laryngoscopy to document RFL findings in a reflux finding score (RFS). RESULTS: We found a statistically significant correlation between RSI and RFS. This correlation is greater when the RFS score reaches 7 or more points. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the cost and system overload implied by the use of pH-metry, empiric pharmacological therapy is warranted on the basis of a diagnosis of RFL based on RFS and RSI.
Subject(s)
Fiber Optic Technology/instrumentation , Gastroesophageal Reflux/diagnosis , Laryngoscopy/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
Objetivos: Algunos autores señalan que los síntomas y los signos del reflujo faringolaríngeo (RFL) son inespecíficos y no se correlacionan entre ellos. El objetivo de este estudio es determinar la correlación entre el Reflux Finding Score (RFS) como protocolo de valoración fibroendoscópica y el Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). Pacientes y método: Se estudió una muestra de 34 pacientes sin historia previa de alteraciones laríngeas, a quienes se entregó el cuestionario RSI (modificado) y se practicó una fibroendoscopia flexible para evaluar el RFS. Resultados: Hay correlación estadísticamente significativa entre el RFS y el RSI, especialmente si el resultado del RFS es $ 7 puntos. Conclusiones: Debido a los costes y la saturación asistencial que supone el uso de pH-metría, pensamos que el diagnóstico basado en la aplicación del RFS y el RSI justifica el tratamiento farmacológico empírico
Objective: Laryngopharyngeal reflux (RFL) is diagnosed by the presence of laryngeal signs and symptoms. Some studies have noted that signs and symptoms may be non- specific and may have poor correlation. The goal of this study was to assess correlation of the reflux finding score (RFS) and reflux symptom index (RSI) as a fibroendoscopic assessment protocol. Patients and method: A sample of 34 consecutive volunteers with no prior history of voice disorders were enrolled. All completed a self-administered laryngeal symptom questionnaire (amended RSI) and underwent a comprehensive transnasal fiberoptic laryngoscopy to document RFL findings in a reflux finding score (RFS). Results: We found a statistically significant correlation between RSI and RFS. This correlation is grater when the RFS score reaches 7 or more points. Conclusions: In view of the cost and system overload implied by the use of pH-metry, empiric pharmacological therapy is warranted on the basis of a diagnosis of RFL based on RFS and RSI
