Objectives:The Eating Assessment Tool is a self-administered, symptom-specific outcome instrument for dysphagia. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the 10-item ...

Validity and reliability of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10).

OBJECTIVE: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing hoarseness (dysphonia), defined as a disorder characterized by altered vocal quality, pitch, loudness, or vocal effort that impairs communication or reduces voice-related quality of life (QOL). Hoarseness affects nearly one-third of the population at some point in their lives. This guideline applies to all age groups evaluated in a setting where hoarseness would be identified or managed. It is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with hoarseness. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this guideline is to improve diagnostic accuracy for hoarseness (dysphonia), reduce inappropriate antibiotic use, reduce inappropriate steroid use, reduce inappropriate use of anti-reflux medications, reduce inappropriate use of radiographic imaging, and promote appropriate use of laryngoscopy, voice therapy, and surgery. In creating this guideline the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation selected a panel representing the fields of neurology, speech-language pathology, professional voice teaching, family medicine, pulmonology, geriatric medicine, nursing, internal medicine, otolaryngology‐ head and neck surgery, pediatrics, and consumers. RESULTS: The panel made strong recommendations that 1) the clinician should not routinely prescribe antibiotics to treat hoarseness and 2) the clinician should advocate voice therapy for patients diagnosed with hoarseness that reduces voice-related QOL. The

/pdf/clinical-practice-guideline-hoarseness-dysphonia-4e0nnc9o4c.pdf

Clinical practice guideline: Hoarseness (Dysphonia)

Normative values for the Voice Handicap Index-10

Attitudes of Children With Dysphonia

Robotic thyroidectomy using a gasless transaxillary approach, first described in 2008, has become popular. This study compared outcomes, including postoperative distress and patient satisfaction, for patients undergoing robotic thyroidectomy with those for patients treated by conventional open thyroidectomy. Of 84 prospectively enrolled patients, 41 underwent robotic thyroidectomy (the robot group), and 43 received conventional open thyroidectomy (the open group). All the patients were followed up for at least 3 months after surgery. Videolaryngostroboscopic examinations were performed preoperatively and after 1 week and after 3 months postoperatively. Postoperative pain and discomfort were evaluated using a symptom scale. Subjective voice and swallowing changes were assessed by questionnaires; and satisfaction with cosmetic outcome was measured by verbal response at 3 months. The two groups were similar in age, gender, type of operation, and final pathologic diagnosis. Although the mean operating time was significantly longer with the robotic technique than with open surgery, there were no between-group differences in postoperative pain or duration of hospital stay. No patient in either group experienced any major postoperative complication. Postoperative discomfort in the neck and swallowing disturbances were significantly more frequent in the open group than in the robot group, both at 1 week and at 3 months after surgery. However, there was no significant between-group difference in subjective voice parameters. At 3 months, the mean cosmetic satisfaction score was significantly higher in the robotic than in the open group. Although postoperative pain levels and complications were comparable in the two groups, conventional open thyroidectomy requires a shorter operative time. The robotic technique, however, offers several distinct advantages including very good to excellent cosmetic results, reduced postoperative neck discomfort, and fewer adverse swallowing symptoms.

Differences in postoperative outcomes, function, and cosmesis: open versus robotic thyroidectomy

Objectives/Hypothesis: The objective was to develop an abbreviated voice handicap assessment instrument and compare it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI).

Study Design: Item analysis of the VHI in individuals without voice disorders and patients with voice disorders and creation and validation of the abbreviated VHI.

Methods: Clinical consensus review of the VHI items was held to prioritize the clinical value of each of the VHI items (30 items in all). Item analysis of the VHI was performed using the VHI responses of 100 patients with voice problems and 159 control subjects. The 10 most robust VHI items were selected using the item analysis and clinical consensus results to form the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). Statistical analysis comparing the validity of the VHI-10 with the VHI was performed with 819 patients representing a wide spectrum of voice disorders.

Results: Statistical analysis of the VHI and VHI-10 scores from the study group showed no statistically significant differences between the VHI and the VHI-10. Irrespective of diagnosis, the correlation between the VHI and the VHI-10 was greater than .90 (P = .01). The ratios of the VHI-10 to VHI scores for a variety of voice disorder categories were analyzed and found to be consistently greater than the expected value (33%). This suggests that the VHI-10 may be a more robust instrument than the VHI.

Conclusion: The VHI-10 is a powerful representation of the VHI that takes less time for the patient to complete without loss of validity. Thus, the VHI-10 can replace the VHI as an instrument to quantify patients' perception of their voice handicap.

Jamie Osborne

Papers

Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10.