Ågot Møller Grøntved

Cochlear implantation and change in quality of life

The aim of this study was to assess the benefits of cochlear implantation (CI) in adults and to evaluate the average implant usage per day. Ten profoundly deaf adults were implanted during the period April 1994 to September 1997. The patients answered questionnaires 1 year or more after receiving their cochlear implants. All of the patients used their implant daily. The average implant usage per day was 16 h. The patients stated that, given the choice, they would again opt for a cochlear implant and would recommend a cochlear implant for a deaf friend. A paired comparison showed that the implants led to significant improvements in a number of factors: self-perceived communication skills, frequency of conversation with others, telephone usage, self-confidence and the impact of hearing impairments on family life. CI dramatically changed the quality of life for all patients. No surgical complications were observed.The aim of this study was to assess the benefits of cochlear implantation (CI) in adults and to evaluate the average implant usage per day. Ten profoundly deaf adults were implanted during the period April 1994 to September 1997. The patients answered questionnaires 1 year or more after receiving their cochlear implants. All of the patients used their implant daily. The average implant usage per day was 16 h. The patients stated that, given the choice, they would again opt for a cochlear implant and would recommend a cochlear implant for a deaf friend. A paired comparison showed that the implants led to significant improvements in a number of factors: self-perceived communication skills, frequency of conversation with others, telephone usage, self-confidence and the impact of hearing impairments on family life. CI dramatically changed the quality of life for all patients. No surgical complications were observed.

Complaints and Satisfaction After Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty

A questionnaire administered 2 years after classical laser uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) showed that 42% of 69 patients had complaints. Most of the complaints, however, were comparatively minor. The most frequent complaint was a tendency to nasal regurgitation (13%), although only two patients needed treatment. Other complaints were pharyngeal hypersecretion (10%), swallowing problems (9%) and speech disturbances (7%). Fourteen per cent of the 69 patients were not satisfied with the effect of the operation. In the group with complaints, 25% were dissatisfied with the result of the operation, whereas only 8% of those with no complaints were dissatisfied ( p <0.05). Continued snoring after UPPP was closely correlated to dissatisfaction with the general result ( p <0.01). It is very important to carry out follow-up after UPPP because complaints and dissatisfaction are common. Every effort should be made to reduce the tendency to nasal regurgitation. The results are relatively good and the procedure justified in cases of severe snoring and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)-resistant obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). The severity and number of complaints were found to be acceptable in this difficult treatable entity.

Test-Retest Reliability of the Dual-Microphone Voice Range Profile

OBJECTIVES The voice range profile (VRP) measures vocal intensity and fundamental frequency. Phonosurgical and logopedic treatment outcome studies using the VRP report voice improvements of 3-6 semitones (ST) in ST range and 4-7 decibels (dB) in sound pressure level range after treatment. These small improvements stress the importance of reliable measurements. The aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the dual-microphone computerized VRP on participants with healthy voices. STUDY DESIGN This is a prospective test-retest reliability study. METHODS Dual-microphone VRPs were repeated twice on healthy participants (n = 37) with an interval of 6-37 days. Voice frequency and intensity (minimum, maximum, and ranges) were assessed in combination with the area of the VRP. RESULTS Correlations between VRP parameters were high (r > 0.60). However, in the retest, a statistically significant increase in voice frequency range (1.4 ST [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.8-2.1 ST], P < 0.001), intensity ranges (2.2 dB [95% CI: 1.0-3.4 dB], P < 0.001), maximum frequency (1.0 ST [95% CI: 0.5-1.6 ST], P < 0.001), maximum intensity (1.4 dB [95% CI: 0.5-2.3 dB], P = 0.002), and area inside the VRP (148 cells [95% CI: 87-210 cells], P < 0.001) was observed. CONCLUSION The intra-examiner variation of the dual-microphone VRP is well below the differences seen after surgical or logopedic intervention, even when measuring in non-sound-treated rooms. There is a need for studies regarding inter-examiner reliability with a longer interval between test and retest before the assessment is fully reliable for clinical application.

Reproducibility of Automated Voice Range Profiles, a Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE Reliable voice range profiles are of great importance when measuring effects and side effects from surgery affecting voice capacity. Automated recording systems are increasingly used, but the reproducibility of results is uncertain. Our objective was to identify and review the existing literature on test-retest accuracy of the automated voice range profile assessment. STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. DATA SOURCES PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ComDisDome, Embase, and CINAHL (EBSCO). METHODS We conducted a systematic literature search of six databases from 1983 to 2016. The following keywords were used: phonetogram, voice range profile, and acoustic voice analysis. Inclusion criteria were automated recording procedure, healthy voices, and no intervention between test and retest. Test-retest values concerning fundamental frequency and voice intensity were reviewed. RESULTS Of 483 abstracts, 231 full-text articles were read, resulting in six articles included in the final results. The studies found high reliability, but data are few and heterogeneous. CONCLUSION The reviewed articles generally reported high reliability of the voice range profile, and thus clinical usefulness, but uncertainty remains because of low sample sizes and different procedures for selecting, collecting, and analyzing data. More data are needed, and clinical conclusions must be drawn with caution.

Reproducibility of Dual-Microphone Voice Range Profile Equipment

Purpose The aim of this study was to add further knowledge about the usefulness of the Voice Range Profile (VRP) assessment in clinical settings and research by analyzing VRP dual-microphone equipment precision, reliability, and room effect. Method Test-retest studies were conducted in an anechoic chamber and an office: (a) comparing sound pressure levels (SPLs) from a dual-microphone VRP device, the Voice Profiler, when given the same input repeatedly (test-retest reliability); (b) comparing SPLs from 3 devices when given the same input repeatedly (intervariation); and (c) assessing the room effect. Results (a) The mean standard deviation across 17 measurement points was 0.7 dB for 1 device. (b) One device was less precise than the other 2 devices. All devices presented high SPLs at low frequencies compared with the reference. (c) Mean SPLs were almost equal in the anechoic chamber and the office. Conclusions The high test-retest reliability of the dual-microphone VRP equipment, especially in general office surroundings, is a positive finding. Attention must be paid to specific factors such as using the same device when comparing the same voice before and after treatment, caution in headset placement, and manual recalibrations when automatic recalibration occurs. We suggest recalibrations verified with a reference source at regular intervals.