ДІАГНОСТИЧНЕ ЗНАЧЕННЯ ВИЗНАЧЕННЯ ЧАСУ МАКСИМАЛЬНОЇ ФОНАЦІЇ У ПАЦІЄНТІВ З ОРГАНІЧНОЮ ПАТОЛОГІЄЮ ГОРТАНІ

О.Л. Матюхина

doi:10.32402/

Authors

O.L. Matiukhina State Institution “O.S. Kolomiychenko Institute of Otolaryngology of National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine”, Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9959-9534 Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32402/

Keywords:

larynx, voice, dysphonia, upper respiratory tract.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study is to assess the diagnostic value of determining the time of maximum phonation (ToMPh) in patients with organic laryngeal pathology in the dynamics of treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. 79 patients with organic diseases of the larynx were examined, divided into two groups according to the effectiveness of postoperative restoration of voice function: 1st – 61 patients with complete restoration of voice, 2nd – 18 patients with unsatisfactory restoration of voice.

RESULTS. In most patients, already on the 10th day after surgical treatment, there was a significant improvement in voice function and normalization of the laryngoscopic picture. However, some patients still complained of hoarseness of voice. 1 month after surgery, all patients had a normal laryngoscopic picture during clinical examination. However, in group 2, complaints of discomfort in the larynx, fatigue of the voice and its unsatisfactory quality persisted. At the same time, the discrepancy between the laryngoscopic picture and the quality of the patients' voice persisted.

Before treatment, all examined patients had a slightly lower ToMPh than normal, this difference was not significant. 1 month after treatment, the index returned to baseline in both groups of subjects and in all patients together. No significant difference in the indices of the groups was found at any time interval. On the 10th day after surgery, there was a slight decrease in ToMPh relative to baseline in both groups, not significant relative to baseline. However, in group 2 of patients, with delayed restoration of voice function after surgery, the ToMPh on the 10th day after surgery was significantly different from the control (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

1. About 20% of patients with organic pathology of the larynx may have unsatisfactory recovery of voice function after surgical intervention.

2. ToMPh can be used as a simple and accessible method for assessing the effectiveness of postoperative recovery in terms of tissue changes, edema, etc., and has a certain value as a prognostic criterion for long-term voice disorders.

The most informative period for examining patients with organic pathology of the larynx in the dynamics of recovery after surgical treatment is 10 days, and then 1 month. During this period, tissue recovery after surgical intervention is already taking place, but signs of voice formation disorders may appear. This time is optimal, as it allows for timely application of therapeutic and preventive measures.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Lee CW, Krüger MT, Akram H, Zrinzo L, Rubin J, Birchall MA, et al. Central mechanisms and pathophysiology of laryngeal dystonia: an up-to-date review. J Voice. 2024 Aug 12:S0892-1997(24)00217-0.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.07.007

2. Cohen SM, Pitman MJ, Noordzij JP, Courey M. Management of dysphonic patients by otolaryngologists. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147(2):289–94.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812440780

3. Meerschman I, D'haeseleer E, Vanderhasselt MA, Claeys S, Vonck K, Vergauwe R, et al. Exploring autonomic dysfunction in functional dysphonia: a protocol for a case-control study and a randomized controlled trial. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2024;59(6):2723–36.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.13111

4. Mor N, Simonyan K, Blitzer A. Central voice production and pathophysiology of spasmodic dysphonia. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(1):177–83.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26655

5. Eldemerdash AM, Behiery EAE, Rashad AED, Elghazali MEA, Eldemerdash AA. Stroboscopy evaluation of vocal folds lesions with pre and post phono surgery. Egypt J Otolaryngol. 2024;40:172.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43163-024-00669-3

6. am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen A, Wiskirska-Woznica B, Neumann K, Nawka T, editors. Phoniatrics I: fundamentals – voice disorders – disorders of language and hearing development. Berlin: Springer; 2020.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46780-0

7. am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen A, Schindler A, Zorowka PG, editors. Phoniatrics III: acquired motor speech and language disorders – dysphagia – phoniatrics and COVID-19. Cham: Springer; 2025.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48091-1

8. Seidner W, Nawka T. Aids to voice diagnostics. Berlin: XION GmbH; 2014. 291 p.

9. Shydlovska TA. Funktsionalni porushennia holosu [Functional voice disorders]. Kyiv: Logos; 2011. 523 p. Ukrainian.

10. Shydlovska TA, Volkova TV. Aktualni pytannia foniatrii. Diahnostyka ta likuvannia porushen holosu [Current issues in phoniatrics. Diagnosis and treatment of voice disorders]. Kyiv; 2025. 96 p. Ukrainian.