保留性鼻整形与结构性鼻整形对嗓音参数的影响
The Effects of Preservation and Structural Rhinoplasty on Voice Parameters.
文献信息
| PMID | 42888129 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Karahan Kara |
| 作者单位 | Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Türkiye. Electronic address: karahanhacettepe@gmail.com. |
| 期刊 | Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation |
| SCI 分区 | Q1 |
| IF | 2.4 |
| 研究类型 | 临床研究 · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 鼻科 |
中文摘要
目的： 比较因美学指征接受手术的女性在保留性鼻整形与结构性鼻整形后的声学嗓音变化。
研究设计： 采用重复术前和术后测量的回顾性比较研究。
方法： 40名20-30岁女性接受保留性鼻整形（n=20）或带撑开移植重建的结构性鼻整形（n=20）。术前未检测到鼻阻塞或喉部病变。分析术前一周和术后3个月存档的持续/a/录音，在Praat中分析基频（fo）、局部jitter、局部shimmer和噪谐比（HNR）。将平滑倒谱峰突出度（CPPS）作为探索性结局加入。比较组内变化和组间变化评分。
结果： 在保留性鼻整形组中，fo保持稳定（214.26 ± 8.97 vs 213.93 ± 8.90 Hz；P = 0.220），而jitter从0.327 ± 0.066%降至0.281 ± 0.065%，shimmer从2.05 ± 0.35%降至1.85 ± 0.36%，HNR从24.91 ± 1.48升至26.19 ± 1.43 dB（均P < 0.001）。在结构性鼻整形组中，fo也保持稳定（220.29 ± 11.16 vs 220.29 ± 11.50 Hz；P = 0.985），而jitter从0.342 ± 0.086%降至0.304 ± 0.084%，shimmer从1.99 ± 0.37%降至1.82 ± 0.38%，HNR从24.66 ± 1.37升至25.86 ± 1.49 dB（均P < 0.001）。CPPS无显著变化：保留性鼻整形组，16.31 ± 1.20 vs 16.24 ± 1.41 dB（P = 0.543）；结构性鼻整形组，17.65 ± 1.15 vs 17.54 ± 1.35 dB（P = 0.337）。结构性鼻整形组的术前CPPS更高（P < 0.001）。保留性鼻整形的jitter降低幅度更大（-0.046 ± 0.012% vs -0.038 ± 0.011%；P = 0.032）。fo（P = 0.383）、shimmer（P = 0.096）、HNR（P = 0.457）和CPPS（P = 0.826）的变化在组间无显著差异。
结论： 两种技术均与扰动指标和HNR的变化相关，而CPPS无显著变化。孤立的jitter小差异仍属探索性；这些发现并未确立整体嗓音质量改善或任一技术的优越性。
英文摘要
OBJECTIVES: To compare acoustic voice changes after preservation and structural rhinoplasty in women undergoing surgery for aesthetic indications.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study with repeated pre- and postoperative measurements.
METHODS: Forty women aged 20-30 years underwent preservation rhinoplasty (n = 20) or structural rhinoplasty with spreader graft reconstruction (n = 20). No preoperative nasal obstruction or laryngeal pathology was detected. Archived sustained /a/ recordings from one week preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively were analyzed in Praat for fundamental frequency (fo), local jitter, local shimmer, and harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR). Smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS) was added as an exploratory outcome. Within-group changes and between-group change scores were compared.
RESULTS: In the preservation group, fo remained stable (214.26 ± 8.97 vs 213.93 ± 8.90 Hz; P = 0.220), whereas jitter decreased from 0.327 ± 0.066% to 0.281 ± 0.065%, shimmer decreased from 2.05 ± 0.35% to 1.85 ± 0.36%, and HNR increased from 24.91 ± 1.48 to 26.19 ± 1.43 dB (all P < 0.001). In the structural group, fo also remained stable (220.29 ± 11.16 vs 220.29 ± 11.50 Hz; P = 0.985), while jitter decreased from 0.342 ± 0.086% to 0.304 ± 0.084%, shimmer decreased from 1.99 ± 0.37% to 1.82 ± 0.38%, and HNR increased from 24.66 ± 1.37 to 25.86 ± 1.49 dB (all P < 0.001). CPPS did not change significantly: preservation, 16.31 ± 1.20 vs 16.24 ± 1.41 dB (P = 0.543); structural, 17.65 ± 1.15 vs 17.54 ± 1.35 dB (P = 0.337). Preoperative CPPS was higher in the structural group (P < 0.001). The jitter reduction was greater with preservation (-0.046 ± 0.012% vs -0.038 ± 0.011%; P = 0.032). Changes in fo (P = 0.383), shimmer (P = 0.096), HNR (P = 0.457), and CPPS (P = 0.826) did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSION: Both techniques were associated with changes in perturbation and HNR, with no significant CPPS change. The small isolated jitter difference remains exploratory; the findings do not establish overall voice quality improvement or superiority of either technique.