Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Office Based Voice Evaluation in Assessing Outcome of Treatment in Laryngeal Disorders

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rapidly evolving global economic status has changed professional behavior. Of late, there is a drastic increase in professional voice users and thereby increase in the patients with voice disorders. Clinically, the changes in the voice can only be perceived but cannot be quantified and documented. It is therefore necessary to have a gadget/tool which is simple and with which we can document and quantify the voice change objectively. This is a prospective case control study with 50 normal control subjects (25 male and 25 female subjects) who had no voice complaints and 50 patients(cases) who presented with complaints of change in voice due to various voice pathologies, the voices were recorded from the control group and also from the cases group both pre and posttreatment and were analyzed. The disease specific frequency in various pathologies of voice pre and post treatment were documented. The degree of change in voice frequency pre and post treatment were compared with each other and with the average frequency obtained from the voices in the control group. Office based acoustic analysis can definitely be used as a simple tool for documenting voice changes on outpatient basis and it provides a dependable documented evidence with which we can even compare the results following treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

F0/f0:

Fundamental frequency of the voice

Cf0:

Frequency of voice in controls

Hz:

Hertz

References

  1. Mathieson L (2001) Greene and Mothieson’s the voice and its disorders, 6th edn. Whurr publication Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Thomas C, Mona A (2005) The Hoarseness patient ENT Secrets 3:179

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bastian RW. Benign vocal fold mucosal disorders. In: Cummings otolaryngology head and neck surgery. 4th ed. Vol. 3. Philadelphia (PA): Mosby; 2005. p. 2150.

  4. Dehqan A, Yadegari F, Scherer RC, Dabirmoghadam P (2017) Correlation of VHI-30 to acoustic measurements across three common voice disorders. J Voice 31(1):34–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Torabinenezhad F, Izadi F, Pourshahbaz A, Bijankhan M, Eslami M, Rohani M, Ebrahimipor M (2018) Acoustic parameters in Persian-speaking patients with dysphonia. Function and Disability J. 1(3):8–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Petrovic-Lazic M, Kosanovic R, Babac S (2009) Acoustic analysis findings in patients with vocal fold polyp. Acta Med Sal 38(2):63–66

    Google Scholar 

  7. doAmaral Catani GS, Hamerschmidt R, Moreira AT, Timi JR, Wiemes GR, Ido J, Macedo E. (2016) Subjective and objective analyses of voice improvement after phonosurgery in professional voice users. Med Probl Perform Art. 31(1):18–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chhetri SS, Gautam R (2015) Acoustic analysis before and after voice therapy for laryngeal pathology. Kathmandu Univ Med J 52(4):323–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Virmani N, Sharma A, Dabholkar J (2016) Outcome analysis in patients with benign vocal fold lesions. Int J PhonosurgLaryngol 6(1):8–13

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wertzner H, Schreiber S, Amaro L (2005) Analysis of fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer and vocal intensity in children with phonological disorders. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 71:582–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Teixeira JP, Fernandes PO (2014) Jitter, shimmer and HNR classification within gender, tones and vowels in healthy voices. Procedia Technol 16:1228–1237

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomas.G, Mathews SS, Chrysolyte SB, Rupa V. (2007) Outcome analysis of benign vocal cord lesions by videostroboscopy, acoustic analysis and voice handicap index. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 59(4):336–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sataloff RT (1991) Professional voice. Raven Press, The science and art of clinical care. New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giovani A, Revis J, Triglia JM (1999) Objective aerodynamic and acoustic measurement if voice improvement after phonosurgery. Laryngoscope 109:656–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Lierde K, Moerman M, Vermeersch H, Van Cauwenberge P. 1996 An introduction to computerized speech lab. Acta Oto-Rhino-LaryngologicaBelg 50: 309–15.

  16. Laver J, Hiller S, Beck JM (1992) Acoustic waveform perturbations and voice disorders. J Voice 6:115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Horii Y (1985) jitter and shimmer in sustained observed in sustained phonation. Folia Phoniatr 37:81–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Halberstam B (2004) Acoustic and perceptual parameters relating to connected speech and more reliable measures of hoarseness than parameters relating to sustained vowels. J Otto Rhino laryngol 66:70–3

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sorenson D, Horii Y (1983) Frequency and amplitude perturbation in the voice of female speakers. J Commun Dis 16:57–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was utilised for the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ENT, Dr.Pinnamanenini Siddhartha Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Foundation, Chinnaoutpalli, Andhra Pradesh, India

    Sameera Gera, S. N. Murthy Pusuluri & Satish Chandra Tripuraneni

Authors
  1. Sameera Gera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. N. Murthy Pusuluri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Satish Chandra Tripuraneni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satish Chandra Tripuraneni.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gera, S., Murthy Pusuluri, S.N. & Tripuraneni, S.C. Office Based Voice Evaluation in Assessing Outcome of Treatment in Laryngeal Disorders. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 74 (Suppl 3), 5111–5116 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-021-02887-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-021-02887-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation