Search

Objective: To estimate the current prevalence of voice disorders among adults in the United States; to determine the association of individual factors with voice disorders., Methods: The 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) was analyzed to identify adults reporting voice problems in the past 12 months. Demographics were assessed, as well as the duration, severity, and resolution of the voice problem. The relationship between voice problems, gender, lost workdays, and long COVID was investigated. A comparison to the 2012 NHIS was made to determine changes in voice disorder prevalence., Results: 29.9 million Americans (95%CI[28.3-31.5]) annually report a voice problem, representing 12.2% of the population (95%CI[11.7-12.8%]). Overall, 26.8% and 13.2% reported the severity of their voice problem as moderate or severe, respectively. Only 5.1% (95%CI[4.3-6.0%]) of respondents sought treatment. Most voice problems were resolved within 1 week (53.0%,95%CI[50.9-55.1%]). Females were more likely than males to report a voice problem (14.4% vs. 10.0%,95%CI[13.7-15.1] and [9.3-10.7], respectively). The 17.6 million Americans with long COVID symptoms were more likely to have voice complaints than those without (21.1% vs. 11.6%,95%CI[18.9-23.5%] and [11.1-12.1%], respectively). Lost workdays were not significantly higher for those with voice disorders compared to those without (17.1 vs. 12.9 days,95%CI[12.0-22.1] and [11.0-14.8], respectively)., Conclusions: Voice problems affect approximately 1 in 8 adults in the U.S. annually, demonstrating an alarming increased prevalence since 2012 using the same survey methodology. Relatively few individuals seek care for their voice problem, despite significant self-reported impact. Further study is required regarding the impact of COVID and changes in voice use patterns on voice disorders., Level of Evidence: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:3713-3718, 2024., (© 2024 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objectives: To assess: (1) the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) with item response theory (IRT) to determine which individual items provide the most information, (2) the extent to which dysphagia is measured with subsets of items while maintaining precise score estimates, and (3) if 5-item scales have the differing discriminatory ability, as compared to the parent 10-item instrument., Methods: Prospectively collected data from 2,339 patients who completed the EAT-10 questionnaire during evaluation at a tertiary care otolaryngology clinic were utilized. IRT analyses provided discrimination and location parameters associated with individual questions. Residual item correlations were also assessed for redundant information. Based on these results, three 5-item subsets were further evaluated using item information function curves. Areas under receiver-operator characteristic curves (ROC-AUC) were also calculated to evaluate the discriminatory ability for dysphagia-related clinical diagnoses., Results: Item discrimination parameter estimates ranged from 1.71 to 5.46, with higher values indicating more information. Residual item correlations were determined within item pairs, and location parameters were calculated. Based on these data, in combination with clinical utility, three 5-item subsets were proposed and assessed. ROC-AUC analyses demonstrated no significant difference between the EAT-5-Alpha subset and the original 10-item instrument for discriminating dysphagia as a primary diagnosis (0.88, 0.88). The EAT-5-Clinical subset outperformed the original 10 instruments in ROC-AUC for aspiration. The EAT-5-Range subset was significantly associated with problems with thin liquids., Conclusions: IRT analyses distinguished three proposed 5-item subsets of the EAT-10 instrument, supporting shorter survey options, while still reflecting the impact of dysphagia without significant loss of discrimination., Level of Evidence: 3 (Diagnostic testing with consistently applied reference standards, partial blinding). Laryngoscope, 133:3327-3333, 2023., (© 2023 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objective: (1) To compare maximum glottic opening angle (anterior glottic angle, AGA) in patients with bilateral vocal fold immobility (BVFI), unilateral vocal fold immobility (UVFI) and normal larynges (NL), and (2) to correlate maximum AGA with patient-reported outcome measures., Methods: Patients wisth BVFI, UVFI, and NL were retrospectively studied. An open-source deep learning-based computer vision tool for vocal fold tracking was used to analyze videolaryngoscopy. Minimum and maximum AGA were calculated and correlated with three patient-reported outcomes measures., Results: Two hundred and fourteen patients were included. Mean maximum AGA was 29.91° (14.40° SD), 42.59° (12.37° SD), and 57.08° (11.14° SD) in BVFI (N = 70), UVFI (N = 70), and NL (N = 72) groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients requiring operative airway intervention for BVFI had an average maximum AGA of 24.94° (10.66° SD), statistically different from those not requiring intervention (p = 0.0001). There was moderate negative correlation between Dyspnea Index scores and AGA (Spearman r = -0.345, p = 0.0003). Maximum AGA demonstrated high discriminatory ability for BVFI diagnosis (AUC 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-0.97, p < 0.001) and moderate ability to predict need for operative airway intervention (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.89, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: A computer vision tool for quantitative assessment of the AGA from videolaryngoscopy demonstrated ability to discriminate between patients with BVFI, UVFI, and normal controls and predict need for operative airway intervention. This tool may be useful for assessment of other neurological laryngeal conditions and may help guide decision-making in laryngeal surgery., Level of Evidence: III Laryngoscope, 133:2285-2291, 2023., (© 2022 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objective: To elucidate potential tissue coverage of side-firing optical fibers in office-based endoscopic laser treatment of larynx, as well as to demonstrate their enhanced ability to address challenging anatomic areas., Method: We performed a comparative study of four different fiber designs: a traditional forward-facing fiber, and three side-firing fibers that emit light at an angle of 45°, 70°, and 90°, respectively. The study was conducted in simulation, using eight three-dimensional models of the human larynx generated from microtomography x-ray scans. A computer program simulated the insertion of the endoscope into the larynx, and the Möller-Trumbore algorithm was used to simulate the application of laser light., Results: Side-firing laser fibers increased potential tissue coverage by a mean of 50.2 (standard deviation [SD] 25.8), 73.8 (SD 41.3), and 84.0 (SD 47.6) percent for angles of 45°, 70°, and 90°, respectively, compared to forward-facing fibers. Angled fibers provided access to areas of the larynx considered difficult to address by traditional methods, including the infraglottis, laryngeal ventricle, and right vocal fold., Conclusion: Simulation results suggest that side-firing optical fibers have the potential to enhance anatomical access during in-office endoscopic laser procedures in the larynx. Further research is needed to better understand the benefits and any potential risks or contraindications of side-firing optical fibers., Level of Evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 133:1205-1210, 2023., (© 2022 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objectives/hypothesis: To determine insurance coverage for gender-affirming surgery and voice therapy for individuals who seek to align their voice with their gender identity, and to analyze differences based on state-by-state transgender equality., Study Design: Cross-sectional study., Methods: Policies from the top three commercial insurers per state in 2019 were reviewed. Coverage status was determined by web-based search, telephone interviews, and email inquiries. A state-by-state equality score was calculated based on the number of laws and policies relating to the transgender community. Correlation between number of preauthorized procedures and state equality scores was assessed., Results: Of the 150 insurance companies reviewed, only four (2.7%) held favorable policies, whereas 113 (75.8%) provided no coverage. Endoscopic surgery, open surgery, individual voice therapy, and group voice therapy interventions were equally excluded (n = 93, 62.4%). Coverage was not correlated with laws driving transgender equality (P = .782)., Conclusions: Gender-affirming voice interventions are seldom covered by commercial insurance companies. Despite established medical necessity and years of experience in practice, gender-affirming interventions for voice have not yet been fully considered by third-party payors. Further investigation regarding cost-effectiveness and treatment efficacy is warranted to improve insurance coverage of voice-related gender-affirming care., Level of Evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 131:E896-E902, 2021., (© 2020 American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society Inc.)

Objective: National initiatives and funding agencies may deprioritize voice disorders relative to conditions such as malignancy, pulmonary, or cardiac disease. It is unknown whether the impact of voice problems is outweighed by other potentially more serious disease states. Our objective was thus to quantify the extent to which voice contributes to general health status when adjusting for concurrent, more life-threatening comorbidities., Methods: Adults (n = 430) presenting to a tertiary care academic center with a primary voice complaint completed the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System global health short-form instrument (PROMIS). Medical comorbidities were categorized via the Deyo modification of the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The influence of voice and comorbid conditions on general health scores was assessed through multivariate ordinal regression. The potential for effect modification was also evaluated., Results: VHI-10 mean scores were 11.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5 to 12.4). PROMIS physical and mental health t scores were 49.0 (95% CI, 48.0 to 49.9) and 51.6 (95% CI, 50.6 to 52.5), respectively. Global and social item scores were 3.4 (95% CI, 3.3 to 3.5) and 3.7 (95% CI, 3.6 to 3.8), respectively. The most prevalent comorbid conditions were pulmonary disease, malignancy, and connective tissue disorders. In all analyses, voice handicap was a significant predictor of general health, even when adjusting for comorbid conditions (VHI-10 β = -1.349, P < 0.001 for physical health; β = -1.278, P < 0.001 for mental health; β = -1.691, P < 0.001 for social health; β = -0.956, P < 0.001 for the global overview item)., Conclusion: In the observed population, voice health has a significant, multi-dimensional impact on general health, which is not subsumed by the presence of comorbidities., Level of Evidence: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:2405-2411, 2020., (© 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objectives/hypothesis: The impact of disease states can be measured using health state utilities, which are values that reflect economic preferences for health outcomes. Utilities for dysphonia have not been studied using direct methods. The objective of this project was to establish the baseline health utilities of mild and severe dysphonia from a societal perspective., Study Design: Direct utility elicitation survey., Methods: Four health states (monocular blindness, binocular blindness, mild dysphonia, and severe dysphonia) were evaluated by a convenience sample of adults recruited from the general public with three computer-aided estimation techniques (visual analog scale [VAS], standard gamble [SG], and time trade-off [TTO]). Standardized descriptions and voice recordings from multiple dysphonic patients were employed. Perfect health was defined as a utility of 1, with death 0. Analysis of variance with post hoc pairwise comparison was used to calculate significant differences between health states., Results: Three hundred participants were surveyed, and 225 (75.0%) responses met quality thresholds. Severe dysphonia (VAS = 48.3, SG = 0.810, TTO = 0.798) was valued significantly worse than monocular blindness (VAS = 56.2, SG = 0.834, TTO = 0.839) on the VAS (P < .001) and equivalent on SG and TTO; it was preferred over binocular blindness (VAS = 25.7, SG = 0.631, TTO = 0.622; P < .001) with all methods. Mild dysphonia evaluated favorably with all methods to the other health states (VAS = 78.5, SG = 0.902, TTO = 0.908; P < .001)., Conclusions: Voice disorders may have a measurable impact on utility, with severe dysphonia valued equivalently to monocular blindness. Mild dysphonia has a utility decrement from perfect health. These estimates are critical for quality-of-life assessment and could be used to assess cost-effectiveness of treatments for voice disorders., Level of Evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 130:1256-1262, 2020., (© 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Objectives: To determine whether the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) predicts diagnoses made via laryngoscopy/stroboscopy, as compared to common clinical inquiries about vocal characteristics., Methods: We prospectively collected data from a cohort of 204 consecutive patients newly presenting for ambulatory laryngology evaluation. Each patient completed the VHI-10 and 16 concurrent mainstream queries about vocal characteristics such as weakness, breathiness, fatiguability, or inability to shout. Using the objective diagnoses made by laryngoscopy/stroboscopy as a gold standard, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were determined., Results: For unilateral vocal fold paralysis, VHI-10 scores had an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and had better discrimination than 12 common clinical queries. At a threshold score of ≥11, VHI-10 sensitivity was 0.94; at a threshold of ≥31, specificity was 0.91. For laryngeal stenosis, the VHI-10 score demonstrated moderate discrimination, with an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.56-1.00) and higher discrimination than three common clinical queries. At a threshold score of ≥11, VHI-10 sensitivity was 1.00; at a threshold of ≥31, specificity was 0.89. Both VHI-10 scores and common clinical queries had low diagnostic ability for vocal fold paresis, laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), paradoxical vocal fold motion, and vocal fold scar or atrophy., Conclusions: The VHI-10 score is an effective diagnostic indicator of laryngoscopy/stroboscopy findings of vocal fold paralysis and laryngeal stenosis, performing better than multiple mainstream queries about vocal characteristics. VHI-10 scores and common clinical queries are limited in their ability to indicate paresis, reflux, paradoxical motion, and vocal fold scar or atrophy., Level of Evidence: 2c Laryngoscope, 130:992-999, 2020., (© 2019 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)