Gender differences in the presentation of dysphonia related to laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: a case-control study

  • Jérôme R. Lechien
  • Kathy Huet
  • Mohamad Khalife
  • Anne-Françoise Fourneau
  • Camille Finck
  • Véronique Delvaux
  • Myriam Piccaluga
  • Bernard Harmegnies
  • Sven Saussez
Laryngology
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the voice quality impairments in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) according to the gender.

Design

Controlled multi-center study.

Materials and methods

80 LPR patients (40 males and 40 females) with reflux finding score (RFS) > 7 and reflux symptom index (RSI) > 13 were included and clinically compared according to gender. To be considered as LPR patients, subjects responded to an empiric therapeutic trial based on pantoprazole intake and diet recommendations for 3 months or had positive pH/Impedance metry. Voice Handicap Index (VHI); Short Form Healthy Survey 36 (SF36), blinded Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain and Instability (GRBASI); aerodynamic and acoustic measurements were assessed in all patients and compared with 80 healthy controls (40 males and 40 females) according to gender.

Results

The most common reasons for the consultation were, respectively, globus sensation in males (22.5%) and dysphonia (27.5%) in female who complained more of breathing difficulties and choking episodes related to LPR than males (p = 0.024). From a quality of life standpoint, female had increased significant impact of LPR disease on vitality and mental health than male. Compared to healthy subjects, both LPR male and female patients had stronger values of G, R, B, S, I, VHI, percent jitter, percent shimmer, and soft palate index than controls. In addition, LPR female had stronger values of lowest fundamental frequency and all aerodynamic measurements than controls.

Conclusion

As showed in many other laryngeal conditions, voice quality of female could be more impaired by LPR than male. Some anatomical, histological and functional factors can be suspected and need additional future researches.

Keywords

Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Laryngitis Voice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

American Journal Expert for the proofreading of the manuscript. This research has been subsidized by the ARC No. AUWB-2012-12/17-UMONS convention from Communauté Française de Belgique.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Koufman JA, Aviv JE, Casiano RR, Shaw GY (2002) Laryngopharyngeal reflux: position statement of the committee on speech, voice, and swallowing disorders of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 127(1):32–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sen P, Georgalas C, Bhattacharyya AK (2006) A systematic review of the role of proton pump inhibitors for symptoms of laryngopharyngeal reflux. Clin Otolaryngol 31(1):20–24 (discussion 24) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jin BJ, Lee YS, Jeong SW, Jeong JH, Lee SH, Tae K (2008) Change of acoustic parameters before and after treatment in laryngopharyngeal reflux patients. Laryngoscope 118(5):938–941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee YS, Choi SH, Son YI, Park YH, Kim SY, Nam SY (2011) Prospective, observational study using rabeprazole in 455 patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268(6):863–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lechien JR, Finck C, Huet K, Khalife M, Fourneau AF, Delvaux V, Piccaluga M, Harmegnies B, Saussez S (2017) Impact of age on laryngopharyngeal reflux disease presentation: a multi-center prospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(10):3687–3696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koufman JA (1991) The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): a clinical investigation of 225 patients using ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring and an experimental investigation of the role of acid and pepsin in the development of laryngeal injury. Laryngoscope 101(4 Pt 2 Suppl 53):1–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ross JA, Noordzji JP, Woo P (1998) Voice disorders in patients with suspected laryngo-pharyngeal reflux disease. J Voice 12(1):84–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pribuisiene R, Uloza V, Kupcinskas L, Jonaitis L (2006) Perceptual and acoustic characteristics of voice changes in reflux laryngitis patients. J Voice 20(1):128–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oguz H, Tarhan E, Korkmaz M et al (2007) Acoustic analysis findings in objective laryngopharyngeal reflux patients. J Voice 21(2):203–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akyildiz S, Ogut F, Varis A, Kirazli T, Bor S (2012) Impact of laryngeal findings on acoustic parameters of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 74(4):215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar R, Bhat JS (2008) Aerodynamic analysis of voice in persons with laryngopharyngeal reflux. Online J Health Allied Scs 7(4):5Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Naunheim MR, Carroll TL (2017) Benign vocal fold lesions: update on nomenclature, cause, diagnosis, and treatment. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 25(6):453–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kantas I, Balatsouras DG, Kamargianis N, Katotomichelakis M, Riga M, Danielidis V (2009) The influence of laryngopharyngeal reflux in the healing of laryngeal trauma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266(2):253–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martins RH, do Amaral HA, Tavares EL, Martins MG, Gonçalves TM, Dias NH (2016) Voice Disorders Etiol Diagn. J Voice 30(6):761.e1–761.e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herrington-Hall BL, Lee L, Stemple JC, Niemi KR, McHone MM (1988) Description of laryngeal pathologies by age, sex, and occupation in a treatment-seeking sample. J Speech Hear Disord 53(1):57–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Houtte E, Van Lierde K, Claeys S (2011) Pathophysiology and treatment of muscle tension dysphonia: a review of the current knowledge. J Voice 25(2):202–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhukhovitskaya A, Battaglia D, Khosla SM, Murry T, Sulica L (2015) Gender and age in benign vocal fold lesions. Laryngoscope 125(1):191–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA (2001) The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score (RFS). Laryngoscope 111(8):1313–1317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA (2002) Validity and reliability of the reflux symptom index (RSI). J Voice 16(2):274–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lechien JR, Huet K, Finck C, Khalife M, Fourneau AF, Delvaux V, Piccaluga M, Harmegnies B, Saussez S (2017) Validity and reliability of a French version of reflux symptom index. J Voice 31(4):512.e1–512.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lechien JR, Harmegnies B, Saussez S (2018) Reply to the letter “Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease in the elderly”. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275(1):317–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin CC, Wang YY, Wang KL, Lien HC, Liang MT, Yen TT, Wang JP, Liu SA, Wang CC (2009) Association of heartburn and laryngopharyngeal symptoms with endoscopic reflux esophagitis, smoking, and drinking. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg v141(2):264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen L, Lai Y, Dong L, Kang S, Chen X (2017) Polysaccharides from Citrus grandis L. Osbeck suppress inflammation and relieve chronic pharyngitis. Microb Pathog 113:365–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ford CN (2005) Evaluation and management of laryngopharyngeal reflux. JAMA 294(12):1534–1540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gupta N, Green RW, Megwalu UC (2016) Evaluation of a laryngopharyngeal reflux management protocol. Am J Otolaryngol 37(3):245–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berg M, Fuchs M, Wirkner K, Loeffler M, Engel C, Berger T (2017) The speaking voice in the general population: normative data and associations to sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. J Voice 31(2):257.e13–257.e24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Xue SA, Fucci D (2000) Effects of race and sex on acoustic features of voice analysis. Percept Mot Skills 91(3 Pt 1):951–958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gorham-Rowan MM, Laures-Gore J (2006) Acoustic-perceptual correlates of voice quality in elderly men and women. J Commun Disord 39(3):171–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Woisard V, Bodin S, Puech M (2004) The Voice Handicap Index: impact of the translation in French on the validation. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 125(5):307–312Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perneger TV, Leplège A, Etter JF, Rougemont A (1995) Validation of a French-language version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in young healthy adults. J Clin Epidemiol 48(8):1051–1060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Braun L (2005) Spirometry, measurement, and race in the nineteenth century. J Hist Med Allied Sci 60(2):135–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lechien JR, Delvaux V, Huet K et al (2017) phonetic approaches of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease: a prospective study. J Voice 31(1):119.e11–119.e20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lechien JR, Saussez S, Harmegnies B, Finck C, Burns JA (2017) Laryngopharyngeal reflux and voice disorders: a multifactorial model of etiology and pathophysiology. J Voice 31(6):733–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Butler JE, Hammond TH, Gray SD (2001) Gender-related differences of hyaluronic acid distribution in the human vocal fold. Laryngoscope 111(5):907–911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lechien JR, Finck C, Costa de Araujo P et al (2017) Voice outcomes of laryngopharyngeal reflux treatment: a systematic review of 1483 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(1):1–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roy N, Tanner K, Gray SD, Blomgren M, Fisher KV (2003) An evaluation of the effects of three laryngeal lubricants on phonation threshold pressure (PTP). J Voice 17(3):331–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yamauchi A, Yokonishi H, Imagawa H et al (2014) Age- and gender-related difference of vocal fold vibration and glottal configuration in normal speakers: analysis with glottal area waveform. J Voice 28(5):525–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dejonckere PH, Kob M (2009) Pathogenesis of vocal fold nodules: new insights from a modelling approach. Folia Phoniatr Logop 61(3):171–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Patel AK, Mildenhall NR, Kim W, Carroll TL (2014) Symptom overlap between laryngopharyngeal reflux and glottic insufficiency in vocal fold atrophy patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 123(4):265–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lechien JR, Huet K, Khalife M, Fourneau AF, Delvaux V, Piccaluga M, Harmegnies B, Saussez S (2016) Impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux on subjective and objective voice assessments: a prospective study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 45(1):59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Beaver ME, Stasney CR, Weitzel E, Stewart MG, Dono- van DT, Parke RB Jr, Rodriguez M (2003) Diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease with digital imaging. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128:103–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wiener GJ, Koufman JA, Wu WC, Cooper JB, Richter JE, Castell DO (1989) Chronic hoarseness secondary to gastroesophageal reflux disease: documentation with 24-H ambulatory pH monitoring. Am J Gastroenterol 84:1503–1508PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shaw GY, Searl JP, Young JL, Miner PB (1996) Subjective, laryngoscopic, and acoustic measurements of laryngeal reflux before and after treatment with omeprazole. J Voice 10:410–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Noordzij JP, Khidr A, Desper E, Meek RB, Reibel JF, Levine PA (2002) Correlation of pH probe-measured laryngopharyngeal reflux with symptoms and signs of reflux laryngitis. Laryngoscope 112(12):2192–2195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sataloff RT, Hawkshaw MJ, Gupta R (2010) Laryngopharyngeal reflux and voice disorders: an overview on disease mechanisms, treatments, and research advances. Discov Med 10(52):213–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wan Y, Yan Y, Ma F et al (2014) LPR: how different diagnostic tools shape the outcomes of treatment. J Voice 28(3):362–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jérôme R. Lechien
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kathy Huet
    • 2
  • Mohamad Khalife
    • 3
  • Anne-Françoise Fourneau
    • 3
  • Camille Finck
    • 5
  • Véronique Delvaux
    • 2
  • Myriam Piccaluga
    • 2
  • Bernard Harmegnies
    • 2
  • Sven Saussez
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of Mons (UMons)MonsBelgium
  2. 2.Laboratory of Phonetics, Faculty of Psychology, Research Institute for Language sciences and TechnologyUniversity of Mons (UMons)MonsBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, EpiCURA HospitalUMONS-EpiCURA Research plateformBaudourBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck SurgeryCHU de Bruxelles, CHU Saint-PierreBruxellesBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck SurgeryCHU de LiègeLiegeBelgium

Personalised recommendations