Article

[Proposals of rational procedures for certifying occupational voice disorders].

Katedry i Kliniki Foniatrii i Audiologii Akademii Medycznej, Poznaniu.
Medycyna pracy (Impact Factor: 0.39). 02/2001; 52(1):35-8.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Following a long period of experience acquired in assessing occupation-related voice disorders, the proposals of objective measures, facilitating the certification of occupational disease of the voice organ in accordance with the binding legal regulations, are presented. The importance of documentary evidence of at least two years of treatment and phoniatric rehabilitation is stressed. A need to prevent occupation-related voice disorders through phoniatric diagnostic procedures is highlighted.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
46 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Teachers are at risk of developing voice disorders. A clinical battery of vocal function tests should include non-invasive and accurate measurements. The quantitative methods (e.g., voice acoustic analysis) make it possible to objectively evaluate voice efficiency and outcomes of dysphonia treatment. To identify possible signs of vocal fatigue, acoustic waveform perturbations during sustained phonation were measured before and after the vocal-loading test in 51 professionally active female teachers with functional voice disorders, using IRIS software. All the participants were also subjected to laryngological/phoniatric examination involving videostroboscopy combined with self-estimation by voice handicap index (VHI)-based scale. The phoniatric examination revealed glottal insufficiency with bowed vocal folds in 35.2%, soft vocal nodules in 31.4%, and hyperfunctional dysphonia with a tendency towards vestibular phonation in 19.6% of the patients. In the VHI scale, 66% of the female teachers estimated their own voice problems as moderate disability. An acoustic analysis performed after the vocal-loading test showed an increased rate of abnormal frequency perturbation parameters (pitch perturbation quotient (Jitter), relative average perturbation (RAP), and pitch period perturbation quotient (PPQ)) compared to the pre-test outcomes. The same was true of pitch-intensity contour of vowel /a:/, an indication of voice instability during sustained phonation. The recorded impairments of voice acoustic parameters related to vocal loading provide further evidence of dysphonia. The voice acoustic analysis performed before and after the vocal-loading test can significantly contribute to objective voice examinations useful in diagnosis of dysphonia among teachers.
    International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 02/2007; 20(1):25-30. · 1.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been shown that teachers are at risk of developing occupational dysphonia, which accounts for over 25% of all occupational diseases diagnosed in Poland. The most frequently used method of diagnosing voice diseases is videostroboscopy. However, to facilitate objective evaluation of voice efficiency as well as medical certification of occupational voice disorders, it is crucial to implement quantitative methods of voice assessment, particularly voice acoustic analysis. The aim of the study was to assess the results of acoustic analysis in 66 female teachers (aged 40-64 years), including 35 subjects with occupational voice pathologies (e.g., vocal nodules) and 31 subjects with functional dysphonia. The acoustic analysis was performed using the IRIS software, before and after a 30-minute vocal loading test. All participants were subjected also to laryngological and videostroboscopic examinations. After the vocal effort, the acoustic parameters displayed statistically significant abnormalities, mostly lowered fundamental frequency (Fo) and incorrect values of shimmer and noise to harmonic ratio. To conclude, quantitative voice acoustic analysis using the IRIS software seems to be an effective complement to voice examinations, which is particularly helpful in diagnosing occupational dysphonia.
    Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology 02/2006; 31(3):100-6. · 0.57 Impact Factor