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

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

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).

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.

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.