Geriatrik yaş popülasyonunun ses performansının objektif ve subjektif olarak değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı geriatrik popülasyonun ses performansının kontrol grubu ile karşılaştırılarak yaşın ses üzerine etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Gereç ve yöntemler: Çalışmamızda geriatrik gruba (>65 yaş) 34 birey dahil edilirken, kontrol grubuna (<65 yaş) 35 birey alınmıştır. Her iki grubun ses performansı objektif ve subjektif olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Objektif değerlendirme için akustik ses analizi (F0, jitter % ve shimmer %) yapılırken, subjektif değerlendirme amacıyla Voice Handicap Index-30 anketi kullanılmıştır. Her iki grup F0, jitter %, shimmer % ve VHI-30 parametreleri açısından ayrı ayrı istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular: Geriatrik grupta F0 ortalama değeri 186.14±43.13 iken, kontrol grubunda 160.74±25.76 olarak bulunmuştur ve fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p= 0.004). Geriatrik grupta jitter % ortalama değeri 0.61±0.34 olarak hesaplanırken, kontrol grubunda 0.68±0.34 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir (p= 0.417). Geriatrik grupta shimmer % ortalama değeri 0.70±0.27 iken, kontrol grubunda 1.03±0.47 olarak bulunmuştur ve fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p= 0.001). VHI-30 parametresi ortalama değeri geriatrik grupta 10.85±4.11 iken, kontrol grubunda 1.37±2.45 olarak bulunmuştur ve fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p< 0.001). Sonuç: Geriatrik popülasyonda ses performansı subjektif değerlendirme sonucu kontrol grubuna göre daha kötü olduğu, buna karşılık objektif değerlendirme parametrelerinin ise daha iyi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Subjektif ve objektif ses değerlendirmesinin korele olmadığı görülmüştür. Bu konuda yeni çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Geriatri, larenks, ses

Objective and Subjective Analysis of Voice Performance In The Geriatric Population

Objective: To investigate the effect of ageing on voice by comparing geriatric subjects with a control group. Materials and methods: The geriatric group (> 65 years of age) included 34, and the control group included 35 subjects. Objective and subjective analysis of voice were performed in both groups. Acoustic voice analysis (F0, jitter % and shimmer %) was done for objective analysis, and VHI -30 questionnaire was used for subjective analysis. The groups were compared for F0, jitter %, shimmer % and VHI-30 scores. Results: Mean F0 was 186.14±43.13 in the geriatric group, and 160.74±25.76 in the control group, with a statistically significant difference in between (p= 0.004). Mean jitter % were 0.61±0.34 and 0.68±0.34 in the geriatric and the control groups, respectively (p= 0.417). Mean shimmer % was found as 0.70±0.27 in geriatric, and 1.03±0.47 in the control groups, and the difference between two groups was statistically significant (p= 0.001). Mean VHI -30 score was 10.85±4.11 in geriatric subjects, and 1.37±2.45 in the controls, and the difference was statistically significant (p< 0.001). Conclusion: Subjective voice analysis showed that voice performance was deteriorated in geriatric population compared to the controls. However, objective parameters of the geriatric patients were better than the controls. Further studies on larger groups are needed to further clarify this subject

Keywords:

Geriatry, larynx, voice,

PDF

___

1. Han D, Xu W, Hu R, Zhang L. Voice function following Han's uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:47-51.
2. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, et al; Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001;258:77-82.
3. Hogikyan ND, Sethuraman G. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice 1999;13:557-69.
4. Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, et al. The voice handicap index (VHI) development and validation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 1997;6:66-70.
5. Baken RJ. The aged voice: a new hypothesis. J Voice 2005;19:317-25.
6. Koufman JA, Isaacson G. Voice disorders. The Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 1991;24:1120-1.
7. Ward PH, Colton R, McConnell F, Malmgren L, Kashima H, Woodson G. Aging of the voice and swallowing. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989;100:283-6.
8. Atan D, Ozcan KM, Ikincioğulları A, Köseoğlu S, Çetin MA, Ensari S, et al. The effect of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and continuous positive airway pressure treatment on voice performance. Sleep Breath 2015;19:777-82.
9. Ringel RL, Chodako-Zajko WJ. Vocal indices of biological age. Journal of Voice 1987;1:31-7.
10. Gregory ND, Chandran S, Lurie D, Sataloff RT. Voice disorders in the elderly. J Voice 2012;26:254-8.
11. Thomas G, Mathews SS, Chrysolyte SB, Rupa V. Outcome analysis of benign vocal cord lesions by videostroboscopy, acoustic analysis and voice handicap index. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;59:336-40.
12. Hsiung MW, Pai L, Wang HW. Correlation between voice handicap index and voice laboratory measurements in dysphonic patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2002;259:97-9.
13. Wheeler KM, Collins SP, Sapienza CM. The relationship between VHI scores and specific acoustic measures of mildly disordered voice production. J Voice 2006;20:308-17.