Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2016 Sep;9(3):238-243. 10.21053/ceo.2015.01354.

Effect of Septoplasty on Voice Quality: A Prospective-Controlled Trial

• Gulec S
• Kulahli I
• Sahin MI
• KokoÄŸlu K
• Gunes MS
• Avci D
• Arli T

• KMID: 2353622
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2015.01354

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The purpose is to investigate effect of septoplasty and widened nasal patency on voice quality.
METHODS
Fifty patients who undergone septoplasty were included in the study. Thirty-three people who had similar age and distribution were enrolled as control group. Before and 1 and 3 months after surgery, anterior rhinomanometry, voice analysis by Multi-Dimensional Voice Program, and spectrographic analysis were performed to patients. The recordings of /a/ vowel were used to evaluate average fundamental frequency (F0), jitter percent, and shimmer percent. In spectrographic analyses, F3-F4 values for the vowels /i, e, a, o, and u/, nasal formant frequencies of the consonants /m/ and /n/ in the word /mini/, and 4 formant frequencies (F1, F2, F3, and F4) for nasalized /i/ vowel following a nasal consonant /n/ in the word /mini/ were compared. The differences in nasal resonance were evaluated. All patients were asked whether change in their voices after the surgery. Preoperative and postoperative voice parameters and anterior rhinomanometry results were compared separately with the control group as well as in the patient group itself.
RESULTS
Preoperative total nasal resistance (TNR) values of patients were higher than the control group (P=0.001). TNR values of patients measured one day before surgery and after surgery in the 1st and 3rd months were different and these differences were significant statistically (P=0.001). There was no significant difference between the voice analysis parameters in preoperative, postoperative 1st, and 3rd months. As a result of their subjective reviews, 12 patients (36%) noted their voices were better than before surgery and 20 patients (61%) noted no change before and after surgery.
CONCLUSION
Providing widened nasal cavity has no effect on voice quality.

Keyword

Nasal Septum; Voice Quality; Rhinomanometry

MeSH Terms

Humans
Nasal Cavity
Nasal Septum
Rhinomanometry
Voice Quality*
Voice*

Reference

1. Thejaswi D, Alfred RM, D’Souza FP. Effect of septoplasty on cepstral analysis of voice. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015; May. 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12070-015-0862-3.

2. Brain D. The nasal septum. In : Scott-Brown WG, Stephens D, Kerr AG, editors. Scott-Brown’s otolaryngology. 6th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann;1997. p. 1–27.

3. Behrman A, Shikowitz MJ, Dailey S. The effect of upper airway surgery on voice. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002; Jul. 127(1):36–42.

4. Behlau M, Hogikyan ND, Gasparini G. Quality of life and voice: study of a Brazilian population using the voice-related quality of life measure. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2007; Feb. 59(6):286–96.

5. Ozbal Koc EA, Koc B, Ercan I, Kocak I, Tadihan E, Turgut S. Effects of septoplasty on speech and voice. J Voice. 2014; May. 28(3):393. e11-5.

6. Dejonckere PH. Perceptual and laboratory assessment of dysphonia. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2000; Aug. 33(4):731–50.

7. Broms P, Jonson B, Malm L. Rhinomanometry. IV. A pre- and postoperative evaluation in functional septoplasty. Acta Otolaryngol. 1982; Nov-Dec. 94(5-6):523–9.

8. Mertz JS, McCaffrey TV, Kern EB. Objective evaluation of anterior septal surgical reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1984; Jun. 92(3):308–11.

9. Gordon AS, McCaffrey TV, Kern EB, Pallanch JF. Rhinomanometry for preoperative and postoperative assessment of nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1989; Jul. 101(1):20–6.

10. Toh ST, Lin CH, Guilleminault C. Usage of four-phase high-resolution rhinomanometry and measurement of nasal resistance in sleep-disordered breathing. Laryngoscope. 2012; Oct. 122(10):2343–9.

11. Warren DW, Dalston RM, Mayo R. Hypernasality and velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994; Jul. 31(4):257–62.

12. Greene JS, Zipfel TE, Harlor M. The effect of uvulopalatopharyngoplasty on the nasality of voice. J Voice. 2004; Sep. 18(3):423–30.

13. Liapi A, Hirani S, Rubin J. Changes in nasal resonance following septoplasty in adults: Acoustic and perceptual characteristics. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2015; Jul. 6. [Epub]. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14015439.2015.1007160.

14. Carson CP, Ingrisano DR, Eggleston KD. The effect of noise on computer-aided measures of voice: a comparison of CSpeechSP and the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program software using the CSL 4300B Module and Multi-Speech for Windows. J Voice. 2003; Mar. 17(1):12–20.

15. Uloza V. Effects on voice by endolaryngeal microsurgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1999; 256(6):312–5.

16. Petrovic-Lazic M, Babac S, Vukovic M, Kosanovic R, Ivankovic Z. Acoustic voice analysis of patients with vocal fold polyp. J Voice. 2011; Jan. 25(1):94–7.

17. Geyer M, Ledda GP, Tan N, Brennan PA, Puxeddu R. Carbon dioxide laser-assisted phonosurgery for benign glottic lesions. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; Jan. 267(1):87–93.

18. Brosch S, Matthes C, Pirsig W, Verse T. Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty changes fundamental frequency of the voice--a prospective study. J Laryngol Otol. 2000; Feb. 114(2):113–8.

19. Mora R, Jankowska B, Dellepiane M, Mora F, Crippa B, Salami A. Acoustic features of voice after septoplasty. Med Sci Monit. 2009; Jun. 15(6):CR269–73.

20. Andreassen ML, Leeper HA, MacRae DL, Nicholson IR. Aerodynamic, acoustic, and perceptual changes following adenoidectomy. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994; Jul. 31(4):263–70.

21. Chen MY, Metson R. Effects of sinus surgery on speech. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; Aug. 123(8):845–52.