Volume: 6 Issue: 2
Year: 2018, Page: 60-63,
Introduction: Alterations in the configuration of the nasal cavity made surgicallyvia procedures such as turbinectomy have been assumed to cause changes in the perceived nasal resonance of the patients post surgery which tends to manifest changes in the overall voice perception. These changes though perceivable are reported to be transient in nature and eventually fall in place as the post surgical duration increases. The purpose of this study was to probe the changes in nasal resonance that affect perceived voice quality following turbinectomy in patients with hypertrophied inferior turbinates secondary to allergic and vasomotor rhinitis, by checking serially obtained nasalance scores.
Aim of StudyThe aim of the study is to assess the pre and postoperative nasal resonance and thereby voice quality in patients with hypertrophied inferior turbinates following turbinectomy.
Materials and Methods :The patients who underwent Turbinectomy, at FMMCH, Mangalore from March 2015 to October 2016 were included in the study. The diagnosis was made based on patient history, clinical examination and nasal endoscopy. The Nasalance was assessed using the Nasometer module of VAGHMI, voice and speech system, Bangalore.The nasalance scores were recorded before surgery and at intervals of 1st , 3rd and 5th month post surgery.
Results :A total of 90 patients were enrolled, out of these 60 patients successfully completed follow up visits on a regular basis. The mean nasalance scores for nasal sounds [m] [ma] and [mi] showed significance before surgery and at the 1st and 3rd month post-surgery. Consequently, nasalance values returned within normal range at the 3rd month post operatively. While the mean nasalance scores for non nasal sounds [a] [i] and [u] returned to normal range at the 5th month post operatively.
Conclusion : The presence of a hypertrophied inferior turbinate and the excision of the same can alter the overall perceived nasal resonance of an individual. Though transient, these changes cause significant change in the nasalence scores. A significant amount of hyponasality is perceived and recorded in the pre operative nasalence scores while hypernasality is perceived and recorded for a period of 3 months post surgery which eventually diminishes and normalizes by the 5th month post surgery. Therefore, surgeons can conveniently reassure patients of the transient nature of the pre and post voice and nasal alterations associated in these conditions. This information will be highly beneficial to patients who are professional voice users.
Keywords: Turbinectomy, nasal resonance, nasometry, nasalance, voice quality.
1. Titze I.R., Lemke J, Montequin D. Populations in the U.S. workforce who rely on voice as a primary tool of trade: a preliminary report. J Voice 1997; 11: pp. 254-259.
2. Fleischer M., Pinkert S. Mattheus W, et al: Formant frequencies and bandwidths of the vocal tract transfer function are affected by the mechanical impedance of the vocal tract wall. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2014; undefined: pp. 1-15.
3. Bouhuys A.E. Sound production in man. Ann NY Acad Sci 1968; 155: pp. 1-381.
4. Osguthorpe J.D. Surgical outcomes in rhinosinusitis: what we know. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 120: pp. 451- 453.
5. Coste A., Yona L., Blumen M., et al: Radiofrequency is a safe and effective treatment of turbinate hypertrophy. Laryngoscope 2001; 111: pp. 894-899
6. Behrman A, Shikowitz M.J, and Dailey S. The effect of upper airway surgery on voice. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002; 127: pp. 36-42.
7. Mora R, Jankowska B, Dellepiane M, et al: Acoustic features of voice after septoplasty. Med Sci Monit 2009; 15: pp. 269-273.
8. Kim S.D, Park H.J, Kim G.H, et al: Changes and recovery of voice quality after sinonasal surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; undefined: pp. 1-7.
9. Urbaniak G.C., and Plous S.: Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [Computer software].
10. Kiliç M.A, Okur E, Yildirim I, et al: Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Voice Handicap Index. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2008; 18: pp. 139-147.
11. Behlau M, Hogikyan N.D, and Gasparini G. Quality of life and voice: study of a Brazilian population using the voicerelated quality of life measure. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2007; 59: pp. 286-296.
12. Markiewicz K, and Pachalska M. Diagnosis of severe developmental disorders in children under three years of age. Med Sci Monit 2007; 13: pp. 89-99.
13. Ozbal Koc E.A, Koc B., Ercan I, et al: Effects of septoplasty on speech and voice. J Voice 2014; 28: pp. 33-411.
14. Birkent H, Erol U, Ciyiltepe M, et al: Relationship between nasal cavity volume changes and nasalance. J Laryngol Otol 2009; 123: pp. 407-411.
15. Kytta J. Influence of the nose on the acoustic pattern of nasal sounds. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1969; 263: pp. 95- 98.
16. Greene J.S, Zipfel T.E, and Harlor M. The effect of uvulopalatopharyngoplasty on the nasality of voice. J Voice 2004; 18: pp. 423-430.
17. Tepper G., Haas R., Schnider B., et al: Effects of sinus lifting on voice quality. A prospective study and risk assessment. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: pp. 767-774.
18. Chen M.Y, and Metson R. Effects of sinus surgery on speech. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 123: pp. 845-852.
19. Raphael L.J, Borden G.J, and Harris K.S. The raw materials— phonation. In Raphael L.J., Borden G.J., and Harris K.S. (eds): Speech Science Primer: Physiology, Acoustics, and Perception of Speech, 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2007. pp. 85-103.
20. Gonzalez J, and Carpi A. Early effects of smoking on the voice: a multidimensional study. Med Sci Monit 2004; 10: pp. 649-656.
21. Horii Y. Jitter, Shimmer. Differences among sustained vowel phonations. J Speech Hear Res 1982; 25: pp. 12-14.
22. Cox N.B, Morrison M.D. Acoustic analysis of voice for computerized laryngeal pathology. J Otolaryngol 1983; 12: pp. 295-301.
23. Goksel A.O, Toplaoglu I. Voice quality assessment via acoustic and spectrographic analysis in patients which had endolaryngeal surgery. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2009; 19: pp. 253-258.
24. Yumoto E. The quantitative evaluation of hoarseness. Arch Otolaryngol 1983; 109: pp. 48-52.
25. Webb A.L, Carding P.N, Deary I.J, et al. The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2004; 8: pp. 429-434.
Vishak S, Rajneesh S K, Vinay V , Mahesh B T, Manjula G , Jacqueline BF. Voice analysis following turbinectomy in patients with hypertrophied inferior turbinate secondary to allergic and vasomotor rhinitis refractory to conservative treatment. Perspectives in Medical Research 2018;6(2):60-63.