Journals / European Archives of Medical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2

Vocal Function Following Frontolateral Laryngectomy

Pages
98–101
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Voice handicap index-10results were between 31-40 in FLL group and 8-14 in control group and also revealed a significant difference.Conclusion: FLL reduces smoothed cepstral peak point and affects the mucosal wave, reducing voice quality.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate smoothed cepstral peak point and laryngostrobosopic results in patients who underwentfrontolateral laryngectomy (FLL).Methods: Eight patients who underwent FLL with bilateral modified radical neck dissection, and who completed at least 12 months of followup, were included.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Voice handicap index-10 was requestedto be completed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Voice handicap index-10results were between 31-40 in FLL group and 8-14 in control group and also revealed a significant difference.Conclusion: FLL reduces smoothed cepstral peak point and affects the mucosal wave, reducing voice quality.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate smoothed cepstral peak point and laryngostrobosopic results in patients who underwentfrontolateral laryngectomy (FLL).Methods: Eight patients who underwent FLL with bilateral modified radical neck dissection, and who completed at least 12 months of followup, were included. All patients underwent laryngostroboscopic evaluation at study commencement; glottal closure was examined. Voicerecords were taken at fundamental frequency (Fo) and smoothed cepstral peak point were analysed. Voice handicap index-10 was requestedto be completed. Ten healthy individual constituted control group. Results were compared.Results: The smoothed cepstral peak points were between 1.81-2.42 in the FLL group and 4.6-6.06 in controls, a significant difference.The Fo ranged from 61 to 192.63 Hz in the FLL group and from 118.57 to 197.61 Hz in the control group, also a significant difference.Laryngostroboscopy revealed significant differences between-group in their closure. Seven patients had incomplete closure in FLL group andthe entire control group had complete closure except one female patient who had posterior glottal gap (p=0.01). Voice handicap index-10results were between 31-40 in FLL group and 8-14 in control group and also revealed a significant difference.Conclusion: FLL reduces smoothed cepstral peak point and affects the mucosal wave, reducing voice quality.

🔖

Cite This Article

SARI, H., UYAR, Y., TUTAR, B., SALTÜRK, Z., KUMRAL, T. L., BİRCAN, H. S., BERKİTEN, G., ÜSTÜN, O. (2022). Vocal Function Following Frontolateral Laryngectomy. European Archives of Medical Research, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2, 98–101. https://ajindex.com/articles/510389

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Galant C, Lagier A, Vercasson C, Santini L, Dessi P, Giovanni A. A pilot study about speech changes after partial Tucker’s laryngectomy: the reduction of regressive voicing assimilation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:3843-9
  2. Dedivitis RA, Pfuetzenreiter EG, Guimaraes AV. Contact endoscopy of the larynx as an auxiliary method to the surgical margins in frontolateral laryngectomy. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2009;29:16-20
  3. Pfuetzenreiter EG, Dedivitis RA, Queija DS, Bohn NP, Barros AP. The Relationship Between the Glottic Configuration After Frontolateral Laryngectomy and the Acoustic Voice Analysis. J Voice 2010;24:499-502
  4. Hillenbrand J, Cleveland RA, Ericsonn BR, et al. Acoustic Correlates of Breathy Vocal Quality. J Speech Hear Res 1994;37:769-78
  5. Hillenbrand J, Houde RA. Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality: dysphonic voices and continuous speech. J Speech Hear Res 1996;39:311-21
  6. Heman-Ackah YD, Sataloff RT, Laureyns G, Lurie D, Michael DD, Heuer R. Quantifying the cepstral peak prominence, a measure of dysphonia. J Voice 2014;28:783-8
  7. Fraile R, Godino-Llorente JI. Cepstral peak prominence: A comprehensive analysis. Biomed Signal Process Control 2014;14:42-54
  8. Kim CH, Lim YC, Kim K, Kim YH, Choi HS, Kim KM, et al. Vocal analysis after vertical partial laryngectomy. Yonsei Med J 2003;44:1034-9
  9. Cruz WP, Rapoport A, Dedivitis RA, Guimarães AV. Videolaryngostroboscopy following frontolateral laryngectomy with sternohyoid flap. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2004;113:124-7
  10. Dedivitis RA, Queija DS, Barros AP, Pfüetzenreiter EG Jr, Felippu A, Salvia VF, et al. The Impact of the Glottic Configuration After Frontolateral Laryngectomy on the Perceptual Voice Analysis: A Preliminary Study. J Voice 2008;22:760-4
  11. Makeieff M, Barbotte E, Giovanni A, Guerrier B. Acoustic and aerodynamic measurement of speech production after supracricoid partial laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 2005;115:546-51
  12. Kılıç MA, Okur E, Yıldırım İ, Öğüt F, Denizoğlu İ, Kızılay A, et al. Ses Handikap Endeksi (Voice Handicap Index) Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Derg 2007;18:139- 47
  13. Giovanni A, Guelfucci B, Gras R, Yu P, Zanaret M. Partial frontolateral laryngectomy with epiglottic reconstruction for management of earlystage glottic carcinoma.Laryngoscope 2001;111:663-8
  14. Biacabe B, Crevier-Buchman L, Laccourreye O, Hans S, Brasnu D. Phonatory mechanisms after vertical partial laryngectomy with glot