본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

성대용종 환자의 후두미세수술 후 음성회복의 예측인자로서의 음향학적 및 청지각적 평가

Acoustic and Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation as Predictor of Voice Recovery after Laryngeal Microsurgery in Patients with Vocal Polyp

이연우|권순복|이병주|김근효
대한이비인후과학회 (Korean Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery)|2018.07|대한이비인후과학회지 두경부외과학 (Korean Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery)|제61권 제7호|pp. 361-369|DOI https://doi.org/10.3342/kjorl-hns.2018.00024

2

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

PraatGradeVocal polypbreathyAcoustic voice quality indexConsensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voiceroughasthenicstrained
주제분류이비인후과학

초록

Background and Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate acoustic (acousticvoice quality index, AVQI) and auditory-perceptual evaluation (grade, rough, breathy, asthenic,strained; GRBAS and consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice; CAPE-V) as apredictor of voice recovery after laryngeal microsurgery (LMS) in patients with vocal polyp. Subjects and Methods A total of 68 patients with vocal polyp participated in this study. Voice samples were analyzed for AVQI by Praat and auditory-perceptual ratings were performedby three speech language pathologists. Voice handicap index-10 (VHI-10) was evaluatedby patients themselves. Results Decreased AVQI, VHI-10, overall severity (OS), and increased smoothed cepstralpeak prominence (CPPS) values were measured and statistically significant changes were notedafter LMS. The ratio of Grade 0 and Grade 1 was increased. AVQI was correlated withCPPS, Grade, and OS, but not with VHI-10. The voice recovery of pedunculated polyp appearedin all vocal polyp sizes after LMS, but statistically significant differences were found only insmall and medium sizes. After LMS of sessile polyps, AVQI, VHI-10, and OS decreased whereasCPPS increased; however, statistically significant difference was confirmed only in VHI-10and OS. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the following results:AVQI [cutoff=5.5, sensitivity=61.8%, specificity=76.5%, area under the curve (AUC)=0.712],CPPS (cutoff=5.0, sensitivity=89.7%, specificity=48.5%, AUC=0.743), VHI-10 (cutoff=13.0,sensitivity=77.9%, specificity=89.7%, AUC=0.893), Grade (cutoff=2.0, sensitivity=70.6%,specificity=69.1%, AUC=0.728), and OS (cutoff=51.0, sensitivity=86.8%, specificity=66.2%,AUC=0.833). Conclusion Acoustic and auditory-perceptual variables showed significant positive changesand predicted recovery of voice. In this study, we believe that the acoustic and auditory-perceptualevaluations.

Abstract

Background and Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate acoustic (acousticvoice quality index, AVQI) and auditory-perceptual evaluation (grade, rough, breathy, asthenic,strained; GRBAS and consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice; CAPE-V) as apredictor of voice recovery after laryngeal microsurgery (LMS) in patients with vocal polyp. Subjects and Methods A total of 68 patients with vocal polyp participated in this study. Voice samples were analyzed for AVQI by Praat and auditory-perceptual ratings were performedby three speech language pathologists. Voice handicap index-10 (VHI-10) was evaluatedby patients themselves. Results Decreased AVQI, VHI-10, overall severity (OS), and increased smoothed cepstralpeak prominence (CPPS) values were measured and statistically significant changes were notedafter LMS. The ratio of Grade 0 and Grade 1 was increased. AVQI was correlated withCPPS, Grade, and OS, but not with VHI-10. The voice recovery of pedunculated polyp appearedin all vocal polyp sizes after LMS, but statistically significant differences were found only insmall and medium sizes. After LMS of sessile polyps, AVQI, VHI-10, and OS decreased whereasCPPS increased; however, statistically significant difference was confirmed only in VHI-10and OS. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed the following results:AVQI [cutoff=5.5, sensitivity=61.8%, specificity=76.5%, area under the curve (AUC)=0.712],CPPS (cutoff=5.0, sensitivity=89.7%, specificity=48.5%, AUC=0.743), VHI-10 (cutoff=13.0,sensitivity=77.9%, specificity=89.7%, AUC=0.893), Grade (cutoff=2.0, sensitivity=70.6%,specificity=69.1%, AUC=0.728), and OS (cutoff=51.0, sensitivity=86.8%, specificity=66.2%,AUC=0.833). Conclusion Acoustic and auditory-perceptual variables showed significant positive changesand predicted recovery of voice. In this study, we believe that the acoustic and auditory-perceptualevaluations.

참고문헌 (36)

  1. Johns MM, "Qualityof-life outcomes following laryngeal endoscopic surgery for nonneoplastic vocal fold lesions", Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 113(8), pp.597~601 (2004)[DOI]
  2. Hochman II, "Phonomicrosurgical management of vocal fold polyps: the subepithelial microflap resection technique", J Voice, 14(1), pp.112~118 (2000)[DOI]
  3. Makeieff M, "Acoustic and aerodynamic measurement of speech production after supracricoid partial laryngectomy", Laryngoscope, 115(3), pp.546~551 (2005)[DOI]
  4. Titze IR, "Workshop on Acoustic Voice Analysis: Summary statement", pp.1~36 (1995)
  5. Maryn Y, "The acoustic voice quality index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders", J Commun Disord, 43(3), pp.161~174 (2010)[DOI]
  6. Maryn Y, "Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels", J Voice, 24(5), pp.540~555 (2010)[DOI]
  7. arsties B, "The acoustic voice quality index. toward expanded measurement of dysphonia severity in German subjects", HNO, 60(8), pp.715~720 (2012)[DOI]
  8. Maryn Y, "The value of the acoustic voice quality index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages", Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 271(6), pp.1609~1619 (2014)
  9. Maryn Y, "Auditory-perceptual and acoustic methods in measuring dysphonia severity of Korean speech", J Voice, 30(5), pp.587~594 (2016)[DOI]
  10. Hosokawa K, "Validation of the acoustic voice quality index in the Japanese language", J Voice, 31(2), pp.260~ (2017)
  11. Uloza V, "Validation of the acoustic voice quality index in the lithuanian language", J Voice, 31(2), pp.257~ (2017)
  12. Ingrisano DR, "Environmental noise: a threat to automatic voice analysis", Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 7(1), pp.91~96 (1998)[DOI]
  13. Deliyski DD, "Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements", J Voice, 19(1), pp.15~28 (2005)[DOI]
  14. Jeong WJ, "Conservative management for vocal fold polyps", JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 140(5), pp.448~452 (2014)[DOI]
  15. Kleinsasser O, "Pathogenesis of vocal cord polyps", Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 91(4 Pt 1), pp.378~381 (1982)[DOI]
  16. Nunez-Batalla F, "Application of the acoustic voice quality index for objective measurement of dysphonia severity", Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp, 68(4), pp.204~211 (2017)[DOI]
  17. Carding PN, "The reliability and sensitivity to change of acoustic measures of voice quality", Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 29(5), pp.538~544 (2004)[DOI]
  18. 최성희, "음성 신호 분류에 따른 장애 음성의 변동률 분석, 비선형 동적 분석, 캡스트럼 분석의 유용성", 말소리와 음성과학, 6(3), pp.63~72 (2014), 한국음성학회[DOI]
  19. 신유섭, "Persistent Dysphonia after Laryngomicrosurgery for Benign Vocal Fold Disease", Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology, 6(3), pp.166~170 (2013), 대한이비인후과학회
  20. Uloza V, "Perceptual and acoustic assessment of voice pathology and the efficacy of endolaryngeal phonomicrosurgery", J Voice, 19(1), pp.138~145 (2005)[DOI]
  21. Eskenazi L, "Acoustic correlates of vocal quality", J Speech Hear Res, 33(2), pp.298~306 (1990)[DOI]
  22. Wolfe V, "Acoustic prediction of severity in commonly occurring voice problems", J Speech Hear Res, 38(2), pp.273~279 (1995)[DOI]
  23. Wolfe V, "Acoustic measures of dysphonic severity across and within voice types", Folia Phoniatr Logop, 49(6), pp.292~299 (1997)[DOI]
  24. Piccirillo JF, "Assessment of two objective voice function indices", Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 107(5 Pt 1), pp.396~400 (1998)[DOI]
  25. Yu P, "Objective voice analysis for dysphonic patients: a multiparametric protocol including acoustic and aerodynamic measurements", J Voice, 15(4), pp.529~542 (2001)[DOI]
  26. Bhuta T, "Perceptual evaluation of voice quality and its correlation with acoustic measurements", J Voice, 18(3), pp.299~304 (2004)[DOI]
  27. Giovanni A, "Objective evaluation of dysphonia: preliminary results of a device allowing simultaneous acoustic and aerodynamic measurements", Folia Phoniatr Logop, 48(4), pp.175~185 (1996)[DOI]
  28. Wuyts FL, "The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach", J Speech Lang Hear Res, 43(3), pp.796~809 (2000)[DOI]
  29. Ma EP, "Multiparametric evaluation of dysphonic severity", J Voice, 20(3), pp.380~390 (2006)[DOI]
  30. Pinarbasli MO, "Acoustic analysis of soccer fans in acute phonotrauma after the match", J Voice (2017)
  31. Lee YS, "Treatment efficacy of voice therapy for vocal fold polyps and factors predictive of its efficacy", J Voice, 31(1), pp.120.e9~120.e13 (2017)[DOI]
  32. Swets JA, "Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems", Science, 240(4857), pp.1285~1293 (1988)[DOI]
  33. 김재옥, "평가자의 청지각적 음성평가와 대상자의 주관적 음성평가 비교", Communication Sciences and Disorders, 14(2), pp.223~235 (2009), 한국언어청각임상학회
  34. 이옥분, "음성문제 자각정도 평가지 개발 - 예비연구 -", 언어치료연구, 20(2), pp.107~123 (2011), 한국언어치료학회[DOI]
  35. Hosokawa K, "The acoustic voice quality index version 03.01 for the Japanese-speaking population", J Voice (2017)
  36. Barsties B, "External validation of the acoustic voice quality index version 03.01 with extended representativity", Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 125(7), pp.571~583 (2016)[DOI]

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (7건)

맞춤전정운동의 임상적 유용성 평가를 위한 체계적 문헌고찰이병돈, 한규철, 박근영, 김병건, 배종석, 황보영, 이승희, 황규린, 채성원, 임기정pp. 325-332돌발성 난청의 예후 예측 인자로서 호중구-림프구 비율 및 혈소판-림프구 비율의 의미최성원, 오세준, 공수근, 고의경, 김선린, 이근익pp. 333-340인공와우 이식 대학생의 대인관계 유능성정성욱, 최영미, 김리석, 김희화pp. 341-348한국인 성인에서의 전두동과 접형동의 함기화: 전산화단층촬영을 이용한 연구이재훈, 심영창, 강명신, 유준상pp. 349-354약물치료에 반응이 있는 알레르기비염 환자에서 Coblation 하비갑개 축소술의 효과허성재, 김정수, 박창묵pp. 355-360
원문 보기