Telephonic voice intelligibility after laryngeal cancer treatment: is therapeutic approach significant?

Abstract

The aim was to investigate telephonic voice intelligibility in patients treated for laryngeal cancer using different approaches. In total, 90 patients treated for laryngeal cancer using different approaches and 12 healthy volunteers were recruited. Each patient and each healthy control read a list of words and sentences during a telephone call. Six auditors listened to each telephonic recording and transcribed the words and sentences they understood. Mean intelligibility rates for each treatment were assessed and compared. Regarding words, the poorest intelligibility was noted for type II open partial horizontal laryngectomies, followed by total laryngectomies. The best intelligibility was found for transoral laser microsurgery, followed by radiotherapy alone. For sentences, the poorest intelligibility was noted for type II open partial horizontal laryngectomies, followed by chemoradiotherapy. The best intelligibility was found for radiotherapy alone and transoral laser microsurgery. More aggressive surgery as well as chemoradiotherapy correlated with significantly poorer outcomes. Transoral laser microsurgery or radiotherapy alone ensured the best telephonic voice intelligibility. Intermediate-advanced T stages at diagnosis also showed significantly poorer intelligibility outcomes, suggesting that T stage represents an independent negative prognostic factor for voice intelligibility after treatment.

Limitations and Opportunities in Open Laryngeal Organ Preservation Surgery: Current Role of OPHLs

“…When analyzing outcomes of OLOPS, great attention must be given to functional outcomes since any treatment has a negative impact on different functions: breathing, swallowing, voice and quality of life (QoL) (59, 60). These functional outcomes must be brought to the patient's attention when discussing the different treatment options.…”

Voice and communication after open partial horizontal laryngectomies: A cross‐sectional outcome study

“…9,10,[20][21][22] Crosetti et al investigated telephonic voice intelligibility after several laryngeal cancer treatments (both surgical and nonsurgical), confirming that while type I OPHL have better results, similar to those of transoral laser microsurgery, type II and type III OPHL show poorer outcomes in terms of voice intelligibility, similar to those of total laryngectomies. 23 Concerning ARY/CAU status in type II and type III OPHLs, no significant differences in phonatory outcomes were observed except MTP, which was significantly higher in the case of both ARY/CAU preservation. The MTP is a highly investigated aerodynamic parameter after open partial laryngectomies.…”

“…Other authors studied voice outcomes after supracricoid and supratracheal open partial laryngectomies, suggesting that voice is highly deteriorated, with similar results for type II and type III OPHLs 9,10,20–22 . Crosetti et al investigated telephonic voice intelligibility after several laryngeal cancer treatments (both surgical and nonsurgical), confirming that while type I OPHL have better results, similar to those of transoral laser microsurgery, type II and type III OPHL show poorer outcomes in terms of voice intelligibility, similar to those of total laryngectomies 23 …”

Substitution Voice Rehabilitation After Open Partial Horizontal Laryngectomy Through the Proprioceptive Elastic Method (PROEL): A Preliminary Study

“…Functional results of type III OPHLs have recently been analyzed [26], showing similar outcomes to type II OPHLs [6], with severe voice impairment but well preserved oral communication, and with almost all patients showing a good attitude towards their communication dysfunction. Concerning technological communication systems, a recent study by Crosetti et al [27] investigated telephonic voice intelligibility after various laryngeal cancer treatment options. Type II and III OPHLs showed the poorest intelligibility rates comparing to transoral laser microsurgery procedures, radiotherapy and type I OPHL.…”