Objective: Vocal fold scarring (VFS) and sulcus vocalis (SV) often result in severe and chronic voice disorders. This study compares subjective voice complaints as rated with the Voice Handicap Index and etiological factors for patients with VFS and SV. Patients and Methods: Data were collected from the medical records at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Karolinska University Hospital, for 27 VFS patients and 27 SV patients. Descriptive background factors were compared between the groups and data were compared from the Swedish Voice Handicap Index (Sw-VHI) questionnaires. Results: Previous laryngeal surgery/trauma was significantly more common for the patients with VFS. The SV group had significantly more persistent dysphonia since childhood. It was significantly more common to have a non-Germanic language origin among the SV patients. VFS and SV rated high for the total median Sw-VHI scores. The VFS group’s total Sw-VHI and the three domain scores were significantly higher compared to the SV group. The physical domain showed a significantly higher score when compared to the functional and emotional domains in the SV cohort and when compared to the emotional domain in the VFS cohort. Conclusion: There are significant differences between the VFS group and SV group regarding etiological factors as well as the Sw-VHI. The degree and profile of VHI should be considered when selecting patients and evaluating the result of new treatments for this group of patients.

Keywords:
Sulcus vocalis, Vocal fold scarring, Epidemiology, Voice handicap index, Inheritance
1.
Benninger MS, Holy CE, Bryson PC, Milstein CF: Prevalence and occupation of patients presenting with dysphonia in the United States. J Voice 2017; 31: 594–600.
2.
Behlau M, Zambon F, Moreti F, Oliveira G, de Barros Couto E Jr: Voice self-assessment protocols: different trends among organic and behavioral dysphonias. J Voice 2017; 31: 112.e13–112.e27.
3.
Spina AL, Maunsell R, Sandalo K, Gusmao R, Crespo A: Correlation between voice and life quality and occupation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 75: 275–279.
4.
Martins RH, Pereira ER, Hidalgo CB, Tavares EL: Voice disorders in teachers. A review. J Voice 2014; 28: 716–724.
5.
Russell A, Oates J, Greenwood KM: Prevalence of voice problems in teachers. J Voice 1998; 12: 467–479.
6.
Merrill RM, Anderson AE, Sloan A: Quality of life indicators according to voice disorders and voice-related conditions. Laryngoscope 2011; 121: 2004–2010.
7.
Hirano M: Morphological structure of the vocal cord as a vibrator and its variations. Folia Phoniatr (Basel) 1974; 26: 89–94.
8.
Thibeault SL, Gray SD, Bless DM, Chan RW, Ford CN: Histologic and rheologic characterization of vocal fold scarring. J Voice 2002; 16: 96–104.
9.
Woo P, Casper J, Colton R, Brewer D: Diagnosis and treatment of persistent dysphonia after laryngeal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 62 patients. Laryngoscope 1994; 104: 1084–1091.
10.
Hirano S: Current treatment of vocal fold scarring. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 13: 143–147.
11.
Allen J: Cause of vocal fold scar. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 18: 475–480.
12.
Lee A, Sulica L, Aylward A, Scognamiglio T: Sulcus vocalis: a new clinical paradigm based on a re-evaluation of histology. Laryngoscope 2016; 126: 1397–1403.
13.
Sunter AV, Yigit O, Huq GE, Alkan Z, Kocak I, Buyuk Y: Histopathological characteristics of sulcus vocalis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011; 145: 264–269.
14.
Sato K, Hirano M: Electron microscopic investigation of sulcus vocalis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1998; 107: 56–60.
15.
Dailey SH, Ford CN: Surgical management of sulcus vocalis and vocal fold scarring. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006; 39: 23–42.
16.
König E, Van der Auwera J: The Germanic Languages. Abingdon, Routledge, 2013.
17.
Jackson-Menaldi CA, Dzul AI, Holland RW: Allergies and vocal fold edema: a preliminary report. J Voice 1999; 13: 113–122.
18.
Lavy JA, Wood G, Rubin JS, Harries M: Dysphonia associated with inhaled steroids. J Voice 2000; 14: 581–588.
19.
Bangalore S, Kumar S, Messerli FH: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor associated cough: deceptive information from the Physicians’ Desk Reference. Am J Med 2010; 123: 1016–1030.
20.
Titze IR, Lemke J, Montequin D: Populations in the US workforce who rely on voice as a primary tool of trade: a preliminary report. J Voice 1997; 11: 254–259.
21.
Vilkman E: Voice problems at work: a challenge for occupational safety and health arrangement. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2000; 52: 120–125.
22.
DeJonckere PH, Crevier-Buchman L, Marie JP, Moerman M, Remacle M, Woisard V, et al: Implementation of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) basic protocol for assessing voice treatment effect. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 2003; 124: 279–283.
23.
Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, Silbergleit A, Jacobson G, Benninger MS, et al: The voice handicap index (VHI) development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997; 6: 66–70.
24.
Ohlsson AC, Dotevall H: Voice handicap index in Swedish. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2009; 34: 60–66.
25.
Bouchayer M, Cornut G: Sulcus glottidis. Attempt at nosological and etiopathogenic clarification. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 1987; 108: 391–392.
26.
Martins RH, Goncalves TM, Neves DS, Fracalossi TA, Tavares EL, Moretti-Ferreira D: Sulcus vocalis: evidence for autosomal dominant inheritance. Genet Mol Res 2011; 10: 3163–3168.
27.
Martins RH, Silva R, Ferreira DM, Dias NH: Sulcus vocalis: probable genetic etiology. Report of four cases in close relatives. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 73: 573.
28.
Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Kuik DJ, De Bodt M, Guimaraes I, Holmberg EB, Nawka T, et al: Validation of the voice handicap index by assessing equivalence of European translations. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2008; 60: 173–178.
29.
Welham NV, Dailey SH, Ford CN, Bless DM: Voice handicap evaluation of patients with pathologic sulcus vocalis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2007; 116: 411–417.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.