Association Between Subjective Voice Assessment and Psychological Distress After Thyroidectomy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the association between postoperative subjective voice function and psychological distress in patients without laryngeal nerve injury after thyroidectomy. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. METHODS: We investigated the factors associated with subjective voice function in patients who underwent thyroidectomy without laryngeal nerve injury between October 2018 and July 2020. The Voice Handicap Index was used to assess subjective voice function, the GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain) scale to assess objective voice, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess psychological distress. FINDINGS: Among 39 patients who underwent thyroidectomy, 32 had no postoperative laryngeal nerve injury. Postoperative Voice Handicap Index was significantly associated with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety score after surgery (rs = 0.448, P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, an association was observed between subjective voice function and anxiety following surgery. The finding suggested that nurses and medical practitioners need to consider postoperative anxiety when evaluating patients' voice function after thyroidectomy.

Correction to: Voice rehabilitation for laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In the original publication of the article, the reference 14 was published incorrectly. The correct reference is given below.

Voice rehabilitation for laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine whether voice rehabilitation after radiotherapy improves the quality of life (QOL), voice function, and self-rated voice function in patients with laryngeal cancer. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized controlled trials published between inception and October 2018. The primary outcome was QOL, adverse events and mortality. Secondary outcomes included voice function and self-rated voice function. The quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Three trials (enrolling 122 patients) compared voice rehabilitation to usual care or no intervention after radiotherapy. Voice rehabilitation did not significantly improve any QOL scores. Data on adverse events and mortality were not available in any of the trials. Voice rehabilitation did not improve any voice function scores, such as jitter (mean difference: - 0.48 [- 1.27 to 0.32]), shimmer (mean difference: - 0.04 [- 0.27 to 0.19]), maximum phonation time (mean difference: 1.54 [- 1.13 to 4.22]), and the grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, and strain scale (mean difference: - 0.39 [- 2.59 to 1.80]). Voice rehabilitation also did not improve the voice handicap index, which was used as a self-rated voice function score (mean difference: 5.54 [- 2.07 to 13.16]). The certainty of the evidence was graded as low for primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Voice rehabilitation for patients with laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy might not improve QOL, voice function, and self-rated voice function. Pre-specified voice rehabilitation programs may not be necessary for all patients with laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy.