Presbylarynx: Is it Possible to Predict Glottal Gap by Cut-Off Points in Auto-Assessment Questionnaires?

PURPOSE

To determine cut-off points in auto-assessment questionnaires to predict the presence and extent of presbylarynx signs.

METHOD

This case control, prospective, observational, and cross-sectional study was carried out on consecutive subjects observed by Otorhinolaryngology, in a tertiary center, in 2020. Each subject underwent fiberoptic videolaryngoscopy with stroboscopy, and presbylarynx was considered when it was identified two or more of the following endoscopic findings: vocal fold bowing, prominence of vocal processes in abduction, and a spindle-shaped glottal gap. Each subject completed three questionnaires: the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), with 30 and 10 questions, and the "Screening for voice disorders in older adults questionnaire" (RAVI).

RESULTS

The studied population included 174 Caucasian subjects (60 males; 114 females), with a mean age of 73.99 years (standard deviation = 6.37; range 65-95 years). Presbylarynx was identified in 71 patients (41%). Among patients with presbylarynx, a glottal gap was identified in 22 patients (31%). The mean score of VHI-30 between "no presbylarynx" and "presbylarynx" groups was statistically different (P < 0.001), with a higher score for subjects with signs of presbylarynx. The presence of glottal gap was associated to a higher mean score of VHI-30 (41.64 ± 11.87) (P < 0.001). The mean score of VHI-10 between "no presbylarynx" and "presbylarynx" groups was statistically different (P < 0.001), with a higher score for subjects with signs of presbylarynx. Among patients with presbylarynx, the presence of glottal gap was associated to higher mean score of VHI-10 (14.04 ± 3.91) (P < 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation between VHI-30 and VHI-10 (rs = 0.969; P < 0.001). The mean score of RAVI between "no presbylarynx" and "presbylarynx" groups was statistically different (P < 0.001), with a higher score for subjects with signs of presbylarynx. Among patients with presbylarynx, the presence of glottal gap was associated to a higher mean score of RAVI (11.68 ± 1.61) (P < 0.001). There was a strong positive correlation not only between RAVI and VHI-30 (rs = 0.922; P < 0.001), but also between RAVI and VHI-10 (rs = 0.906; P < 0.001). The optimal cut-off points to discriminate "no presbylarynx" from "presbylarynx", obtained by the Youden' index, were 3.5 for RAVI, 4.5 for VHI-30 and 1.5 for VHI-10. RAVI had the highest sensitivity and specificity. The optimal cut-off points to predict glottal gap, obtained by the Youden' index, were 9.5 for RAVI, 21 for VHI-30 and 7.5 for VHI-10.

CONCLUSION

The optimal cut-off points do discriminate "no presbylarynx" from "presbylarynx" were 3.5 for RAVI, 4.5 for VHI-30 and 1.5 for VHI-10. RAVI had the highest sensitivity and specificity, probably because it was designed specifically for vocal complaints of the elderly. Among patients with presbylarynx, cut-off points of 9.5 for RAVI, 21 for VHI-30 and 7.5 for VHI-10 were determined to predict patients with and without glottal gap. It was found a strong positive correlation between RAVI, VHI-30 and VHI-10. Thus, VHI-10 can be preferred to VHI-30 to assess voice impairment in clinical practice, because for elderly patients it is easier to answer. However, to predict endoscopic signs of presbylarynx, RAVI should be preferred.