Postoperative Voice Surgical Outcomes in Professional Singers vs Non-Singers

Return to Vocal Performance Following Microlaryngoscopy in Singers

“…4 Papers have focused on quantitative measures of acoustics and aerodynamics, stroboscopic examination, perceptual voice assessments, and patient-reported outcome measures to compare pre-and postoperative voice. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Such reports have done much valuable work to shift notions of risk in voice surgery but offer an incomplete picture of functional results in performers.…”

“…The most common measure of results of microlaryngoscopy in singers has been to compare pre-and post-intervention vocal function measures, stroboscopy parameters, and/or patient self-rating questionnaires. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] This offers reassurance that surgery has beneficial results in the vast majority of patients, but improvement in these parameters is not necessarily equivalent to restoration of pre-injury vocal capability. Pre-intervention measures do not represent normal performance but rather the injured state from which the performer is seeking relief.…”

“…Despite its central importance in the care of the performer, return to vocal performance following procedural intervention has been sparsely addressed in laryngology literature, mentioned in passing if at all alongside other metrics. In fact, one group has proposed that the absence of RTP data constitutes evidence of success: “difficulty in getting patients to return for final assessment typically indicates that they are performing successfully.” 4 Papers have focused on quantitative measures of acoustics and aerodynamics, stroboscopic examination, perceptual voice assessments, and patient‐reported outcome measures to compare pre‐ and postoperative voice 4–12 . Such reports have done much valuable work to shift notions of risk in voice surgery but offer an incomplete picture of functional results in performers.…”