Speech Intelligibility After Glossectomy and Speech Rehabilitation
Overview
Affiliations
Background: Oral tumor resections cause articulation deficiencies, depending on the site, extent of resection, type of reconstruction, and tongue stump mobility.
Objectives: To evaluate the speech intelligibility of patients undergoing total, subtotal, or partial glossectomy, before and after speech therapy.
Patients And Methods: Twenty-seven patients (24 men and 3 women), aged 34 to 77 years (mean age, 56.5 years), underwent glossectomy. Tumor stages were T1 in 3 patients, T2 in 4, T3 in 8, T4 in 11, and TX in 1; node stages, N0 in 15 patients, N1 in 5, N2a-c in 6, and N3 in 1. No patient had metastases (M0). Patients were divided into 3 groups by extent of tongue resection, ie, total (group 1; n = 6), subtotal (group 2; n = 9), and partial (group 3; n = 12). Different phonological tasks were recorded and analyzed by 3 experienced judges, including sustained 7 oral vowels, vowel in a syllable, and the sequence vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV). The intelligibility of spontaneous speech (sequence story) was scored from 1 to 4 in consensus. All patients underwent a therapeutic program to activate articulatory adaptations, compensations, and maximization of the remaining structures for 3 to 6 months. The tasks were recorded after speech therapy. To compare mean changes, analyses of variance and Wilcoxon tests were used.
Results: Patients of groups 1 and 2 significantly improved their speech intelligibility (P<.05). Group 1 improved vowels, VCV, and spontaneous speech; group 2, syllable, VCV, and spontaneous speech. Group 3 demonstrated better intelligibility in the pretherapy phase, but the improvement after therapy was not significant.
Conclusions: Speech therapy was effective in improving speech intelligibility of patients undergoing glossectomy, even after major resection. Different pretherapy ability between groups was seen, with improvement of speech intelligibility in groups 1 and 2. The improvement of speech intelligibility in group 3 was not statistically significant, possibly because of the small and heterogeneous sample.
Arias-Vergara T, Perez-Toro P, Liu X, Xing F, Stone M, Zhuo J Interspeech. 2024; 2024:927-931.
PMID: 39726638 PMC: 11671147. DOI: 10.21437/interspeech.2024-2236.
Dasgupta S, Samuel S Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2023; 12(2):157-160.
PMID: 36874774 PMC: 9976854. DOI: 10.4103/ams.ams_76_22.
Riva G, Sapino S, Ravera M, Elia G, Pecorari G Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2021; 88 Suppl 4:S33-S43.
PMID: 34407916 PMC: 9756059. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.06.009.
Dokhe Y, Thankappan K, Sood R, Jaya A, Balasubramanian D, Chatni S Indian J Surg Oncol. 2021; 12(1):100-107.
PMID: 33814839 PMC: 7960814. DOI: 10.1007/s13193-020-01216-1.
Effect of Noise on Speech Intelligibility and Perceived Listening Effort in Head and Neck Cancer.
Eadie T, Durr H, Sauder C, Nagle K, Kapsner-Smith M, Spencer K Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021; 30(3S):1329-1342.
PMID: 33630664 PMC: 8702834. DOI: 10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00149.