OBJECTIVE: This study aims to find a correlation between vocal fold polyps and sulcus vocalis and to investigate the character of such vocal fold polyps associated with sulcus vocalis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical research. METHODS: A retrospective review of 280 patients who have been admitted and operated under general anesthesia for vocal fold polyps at a tertiary care medical center from March 2009 to July 2012 was performed. RESULTS: The patients were classified into two groups. Group A (18 patients) was defined as patients who have been diagnosed with vocal polyps coexisting with sulcus vocalis. Group B (262 patients) was designated to the rest of the patients who have been solely diagnosed with vocal fold polyps. The prevalence of an underlying sulcus vocalis associated with vocal polyps in the studied population overall was 6.4% (18/280). Considering the recurrence rate of vocal fold polyps in each group, it was 16.7% (three patients) in group A and 3.1% (eight patients) in group B. In general, there was an improvement in the voice quality after the operation in both groups. The degree of improvement was less substantial in group A rather than group B. CONCLUSION: When dealing with patients who have been diagnosed as vocal fold polyps, the possibility of coexisting sulcus vocalis should always be considered, and if diagnosed simultaneously, management of vocal polyps and sulcus vocalis must be sought for a better voice outcome and to reduce the chance of recurrence of vocal polyps.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to find a correlation between vocal fold polyps and sulcus vocalis and to investigate the character of such vocal fold polyps associated with sulcus vocalis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical research. METHODS: A retrospective review of 280 patients who have been admitted and operated under general anesthesia for vocal fold polyps at a tertiary care medical center from March 2009 to July 2012 was performed. RESULTS: The patients were classified into two groups. Group A (18 patients) was defined as patients who have been diagnosed with vocal polyps coexisting with sulcus vocalis. Group B (262 patients) was designated to the rest of the patients who have been solely diagnosed with vocal fold polyps. The prevalence of an underlying sulcus vocalis associated with vocal polyps in the studied population overall was 6.4% (18/280). Considering the recurrence rate of vocal fold polyps in each group, it was 16.7% (three patients) in group A and 3.1% (eight patients) in group B. In general, there was an improvement in the voice quality after the operation in both groups. The degree of improvement was less substantial in group A rather than group B. CONCLUSION: When dealing with patients who have been diagnosed as vocal fold polyps, the possibility of coexisting sulcus vocalis should always be considered, and if diagnosed simultaneously, management of vocal polyps and sulcus vocalis must be sought for a better voice outcome and to reduce the chance of recurrence of vocal polyps.