Türkiye’deki profesyonel ses kullanıcılarında ses bozuklukları: klinik ve epidemiyolojik özellikler

Öz

Amaç: Profesyonel ses kullanıcıları, mesleki performansları kısmen veya tamamen etkili ses kullanımına bağlı olan bireylerdir. Bu grup; öğretmenler, din görevlileri, %arkıcılar, oyuncular ve çağrı merkezi çalı%anları gibi meslekleri kapsamaktadır. Bu çalı%manın amacı, Türkiye’de ses yakınması ile ba%vuran profesyonel ses kullanıcılarının demografik özelliklerini ve videolaringostroboskopik tanılarını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalı%maya, iki üçüncü basamak referans hastanesinin ses polikliniklerinde değerlendirilen 162 profesyonel ses kullanıcısı dahil edildi. Ses yakınması nedeniyle videolaringostroboskopik inceleme yapılan hastalara ait önceden kaydedilmi% klinik veriler, etik kurul onayı alındıktan sonra geriye dönük olarak incelendi. Ses bozuklukları, videolaringostroboskopik bulgulara dayanarak organik, fonksiyonel veya nörojenik olarak sınıflandırıldı. Bulgular: Katılımcıların ya% ortalaması 39,5 ± 11,0 yıl olup, %53,1’i (n = 86) erkek ve %46,9’u (n = 76) kadındı. Mesleki dağılıma bakıldığında; olguların %42,0’ı (n = 68) öğretmen, %27,2’si (n = 44) din görevlisi, %26,5’i (n = 43) opera %arkıcısı ve müzisyen, %4,3’ü (n = 7) ise çağrı merkezi çalı%anı, oyuncu ve avukatlardan olu%maktaydı. En sık saptanan tanı bilateral vokal kord nodülleri (%37,7; n = 61) olup, bunu kas gerilim disfonisi (%22,6; n = 36) ve vokal kord polipleri (%19,1; n = 31) izlemekteydi. Diğer tanılar arasında vokal kord kistleri (%6,8; n = 11), Reinke ödemi (%6,2; n = 10), sulkus vokalis (%3,7; n = 6) ve vokal kord paralizisi (%3,1; n = 5) yer almaktaydı. Sonuç: Videolaringostroboskopik değerlendirme, profesyonel ses kullanıcılarında altta yatan ses bozukluklarının belirlenmesinde değerli klinik bilgiler sağlamaktadır. Bu çalı%manın bulguları, Türkiye’ de geni% bir profesyonel ses kullanıcısı grubunda ses bozukluklarının dağılımını yansıtan önemli klinik veriler sunmakta ve bu özel hasta grubunda erken tanı ile koruyucu yakla%ımların önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• profesyonel ses kullanıcıları
• ses bozuklukları
• ses kısıklığı
• videolaringostroboskopik inceleme

Voice disorders in professional voice users in Turkey: clinical and epidemiologic characteristics

Öz

Aim: Professional voice users are individuals whose professional performance depends partially or entirely on effective voice use. This group includes occupations such as teachers, clergy members, singers, actors, and call center employees. The aim of this study was to evaluate the demographic characteristics and videolaryngostroboscopic diagnoses of professional voice users presenting with voice complaints in Turkey. Material and Methods: This retrospective study included 162 professional voice users evaluated at the voice outpatient clinics of two tertiary referral hospitals. Previously recorded clinical data of patients who underwent videolaryngostroboscopic examination for voice complaints were reviewed following ethics committee approval. Voice disorders were classified as organic, functional, or neurogenic based on videolaryngostroboscopic findings. Results: The mean age of the participants was 39.5 ± 11.0 years; 53.1% (n = 86) were male and 46.9% (n = 76) were female. Occupationally, 42.0% (n = 68) were teachers, 27.2% (n = 44) were clergy members, 26.5% (n = 43) were opera singers and musicians, and 4.3% (n = 7) were call center employees, actors, and lawyers. The most common diagnoses were bilateral vocal fold nodules (37.7%, n = 61), followed by muscle tension dysphonia (22.6%, n = 36) and vocal fold polyps (19.1%, n = 31). Other diagnoses included vocal fold cysts (6.8%, n = 11), Reinke’s edema (6.2%, n = 10), sulcus vocalis (3.7%, n = 6), and vocal fold paralysis (3.1%, n = 5). Conclusions: Videolaryngostroboscopic evaluation provides valuable clinical information for identifying underlying voice disorders in professional voice users. The findings of this study offer important clinic-based data reflecting the distribution of voice disorders among a broad range of professional voice users in Turkey and emphasize the importance of early diagnosis and preventive strategies in this special patient population.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• professional voice users
• voice disorders
• dysphonia
• videolaryngostroboscopic examination

Kaynakça

1. Titze IR, Lemke JH, Montequin D. Populations in the U.S. workforce who rely on voice as a primary tool of trade: a preliminary report. J Voice. 1997;11:254-9.
2. Koufman JA, Isaacson G. The spectrum of vocal dysfunction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1991;24:985-8.
3. Oates J, Winkworth A. Characterising hyperfunctional voice disorders: etiology, assessment, treatment and prevention. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2008;10(4):193–194.
4. Verdolini K, Ramig LO. Review: occupational risks for voice problems. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2001;26:37–46.
5. Roy N, Merrill RM, Thibeault S, Parsa RA, Gray SD, Smith EM. Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47:281–293.
6. Lyberg-Åhlander V, Rydell R, Lofqvist A. Speaker’s comfort in teaching environments: voice problems in Swedish teaching staff. J Voice. 2011;25:430–440.
7. Fellman D, Simberg S. Prevalence and risk factors for voice problems among soccer coaches. J Voice. 2017;31:e9–e12.
8. Martins RH, do Amaral HA, Tavares EL, Martins MG, Gonçalves TM, Dias NH. Voice disorders: etiology and diagnosis. J Voice. 2016;30:e1–e761.

9. Hah JH, Sim S, An SY, Sung MW, Choi HG. Evaluation of the prevalence of and factors associated with laryngeal diseases among the general population. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:2536-42.
10. Mozzanica F, Ginocchio D, Barillari R, Barozzi S, Maruzzi P, Ottaviani F, Schindler A. Prevalence and voice characteristics of laryngeal pathology in an Italian voice therapy-seeking population. J Voice. 2016;30:774.e13–774.e21.
11. Roy N, Merrill RM, Gray SD, Smith EM. Voice disorders in the general population: prevalence, risk factors, and occupational impact. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:1988-95.
12. Lyberg-Åhlander V, Rydell R, Fredlund P, Magnusson C, Wilén S. Prevalence of voice disorders in the general population, based on the Stockholm Public Health Cohort. J Voice. 2019;33:900-5.
13. Bhattacharyya N. The prevalence of voice problems among adults in the United States. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:2359-62.
14. Spantideas N, Drosou E, Karatsis A, Assimakopoulos D. Voice disorders in the general Greek population and in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux: prevalence and risk factors. J Voice. 2015;29:e327–e332.
15. Behlau M, Zambon F, Guerrieri AC, Roy N. Epidemiology of voice disorders in teachers and nonteachers in Brazil: prevalence and adverse effects. J Voice. 2012;26:e9–e18.
16. De Jong FI, Kooijman PG, Thomas G, Huinck WJ, Graamans K, Schutte HK. Epidemiology of voice problems in Dutch teachers. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2006;58:186-98.
17. Simberg S, Sala E, Vehmas K, Laine A. Changes in the prevalence of vocal symptoms among teachers during a twelve-year period. J Voice. 2005;19:95-102.
18. Munier C, Kinsella R. The prevalence and impact of voice problems in primary school teachers. Occup Med (Lond). 2008;58:74-6.
19. Angelillo M, Di Maio G, Costa G, Angelillo N, Barillari U. Prevalence of occupational voice disorders in teachers. J Prev Med Hyg. 2009;50:26-32.
20. Büyükatalay ZC, Gökmen MF, Yıldırım S, Dursun G. Voice disorders in Islamic religious officials: is it any different than those of teachers, another well-known professional voice users? J Voice. 2020;34:738-42.
21. Yenigezer AG, Barmak E, Altan E, Tatar Çadallı E. Investigation of the relationship between temperament and personality traits and voice disorders in religious officials. J Voice. 2024.
22. Hagelberg AM, Simberg S. Prevalence of voice problems in priests and some risk factors contributing to them. J Voice. 2015;29(3):389.e11–389.e18.
23. Mori MC, Francis DO, Song PC. Identifying occupations at risk for laryngeal disorders requiring specialty voice care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;157:670-5.
24. Pestana PM, Vaz-Freitas S, Manso MC. Prevalence of voice disorders in singers: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Voice. 2017;31:722-7.
25. da Silva Dantas BTSE, Enéas ELS, de Azevedo SLG, da Silva MIB, de Lima-Silva MFB. Vocal health, working conditions and their implications on the occupational health of telemarketers: an integrative review. J Voice. 2021.
26. Przysiezny PE, Przysiezny LTS. Work-related voice disorder. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;80:1-10.
27. Chen BL, Guo HR. Incidence of voice disorders among private school teachers in Taiwan: a nationwide longitudinal study. Saf Health Work. 2022;13(Suppl):S132.
28. Sarımehmetoğlu EA, Barmak E. Examination of voice perception and voice fatigue in call center employees. J Voice. 2024.
29. Schneider-Stickler B, Knell C, Aichstill B, Jocher W. Biofeedback on voice use in call center agents in order to prevent occupational voice disorders. J Voice. 2012;26(1):51-62.
30. Sharma V, Nayak S, Devadas U. A survey of vocal health in church choir singers. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021.
31. Hocevar-Boltezar I. Prevalence and risk factors for voice problems in priests. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2009;121:276-81.
32. Hapner E, Gilman M. The vocal load of Reform Jewish cantors in the USA. J Voice. 2011;26:201–204.
33. Smith E, Gray S, Dove H, Kirchner L, Heras H. Frequency and effects of teachers’ voice problems. J Voice. 1997;11:81-7.
34. Smith E, Kirchner HL, Taylor M, Hoffman H, Lemke JH. Voice problems among teachers: differences by gender and teaching characteristics. J Voice. 1998;12:328-34.
35. Miller M, Verdolini K. Frequency of voice problems reported by teachers of singing and control subjects and risk factors. J Voice. 1995;8:348-62.