Search

Objectives: (I) To serve as a model for ENT services in the process of creating a voice unit and (II) to show the results obtained in our Voice Unit over the past 12 months., Methods: Sections on Voice Unit Functions, Organisation and Procedures are presented, as well as the study of 122 patients: an assessment of patient self-perception using the Voice Handicap Index, diagnostic category, Voice Unit diagnosis, previous treatments and treatments proposed by the Unit., Results: The results highlight that Voice Handicap Index scores tend towards mild and moderate evaluations; that the most frequent pathological group are exudative lesions affecting Reinke's space; that there are diagnostic discrepancies of more than 50% between the general ENT consultations and the Voice Unit; and that the most common treatment is speech and language therapy (45%), followed by phonosurgery (28%)., Conclusions: The main aim of the Voice Unit is to achieve maximum effectiveness and quality in its various functions. Correct diagnosis and treatment increases effectiveness and allows better use of resources; achieving this requires a minimal, essential setup: laryngostroboscope, a multidimensional protocol and interdisciplinary work., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

A study of the objective evaluation of voice was made of 100 voices of healthy adults and 60 with disphonia (nodules and polyps). A laryngostroboscopy and an acoustic analysis was made to everyone. A sustained vowel "a" was carried out and digitalized with Dr. Speech Science software. These parameters were estimated: fundamental frequency (Fo, according to gender), Jitter, Shimmer and glottic noise (NNE, HNR, SNR). In the healthy group Fo was 139.72 in men and 267.33 in women, jitter 0.24 and shimmer 2.10. In disphonic patients (nodules) Fo was 126.96 in men and 240.72 in women, jitter 0.35 and shimmer 3.25. In disphonic patients (polyps) Fo was 119.75 in men and 218.26 in women, jitter 0.50 and shimmer 4.34. These difference were statistically significant. Glottic Noise in healthy group was: NNE -13.62, HNR 24.07 and SNR 24.49; in disphonic patients (nodules) was: NNE -10.65, HNR 25.21 and SNR 25.55; in disphonic patients (polyps) was: NNE -8.24, HNR 29.63 and SNR 28.22. Only the difference in the NNE was statistically significant. We highlight the importance of objective evaluation of voice disorders.