Validity, reliability and reproducibility of the VLS parameters form for the collection of videolaryngostroboscopic basic findings.

OBJECTIVE: The videolaryngostroboscopy parameters form (VLSP form) is a diagnostic tool for the collection of videolaryngostroboscopic basic findings through the evaluation of 12 parameters. The aim of the present study is to preliminarily investigate intra- and inter-rater reliability, validity and responsiveness of the VLSP form. METHODS: A study on a total amount of 160 forms for the evaluation of VLS basic findings was carried out. 80 forms were scored through the VLSP form and 80 with the Voice Vibratory Assessment with Laryngeal Imaging (VALI) form Stroboscopy (S) by four expert phoniatricians, that blindly scored the VLS recordings of 5 subjects without voice disorders and 5 patients with organic voice disorder before and after successful phonosurgery. Intra-rater and inter-rater analysis have been performed for both forms. The scores obtained through VLSP form and VALI form S have been compared to analyse concurrent validity, while VLSP scores before and after phonosurgery have been compared to analyse responsiveness. Finally, each rater annotated the "difficulty" in rating every parameter and its "importance" for the diagnosis. RESULTS: The VLSP form showed good inter- and intra-rater reliability. It showed a good accuracy for the documentation of changes of laryngeal anatomy and function after phonosurgery, similarly to the VALI form S. The 12 parameters of the VLSP form were judged "Slightly Important" in 28.3% of the samples, "Very Important" in 64.8% of the samples, "Not Difficult" in 73.1% of the samples. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that the VLSP form is comparable to the VALI form S for the evaluation of videolaryngostroboscopic parameters and is a valid, reliable and reproducible diagnostic tool. It can help voice clinicians in the evaluation of VLS examinations and it allows for a punctual assessment of modifications in laryngeal anatomy and function in pathological conditions and after phonosurgery.

Dysphagia characteristics at FEES examination in post-extubation patients with COVID-19.

Objective: The aims of this study was to analyse fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) findings in tube-fed patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Seventeen patients who had been intubated during intensive care unit (ICU) stay were enrolled. Pooling of secretions, dysphagia phenotype, penetration/aspiration and residue after swallow were assessed through FEES. The Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) scores were also collected. Patients with significant swallowing impairment were evaluated again after 2 weeks. Results: All patients were tube-fed at enrollment. According to the FEES results, 7 started total oral feeding with at least one consistency. The more common dysphagia phenotypes were propulsive deficit and delayed pharyngeal phase. Pooling of secretions, penetration/aspiration, and residue after swallow were frequently documented. A significant improvement in FOIS scores was found during the second FEES examination. Conclusions: Swallowing impairment in patients with severe COVID-19 after discharge from the ICU is characterised by propulsive deficit and delayed pharyngeal phase. Most of these patients required feeding restrictions even if feeding abilities seem to improve over time.

Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in pediatrics: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the state-of-art regarding the use of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in pediatrics, specifically investigating FEES feasibility, safety, diagnostic accuracy, and protocols. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched for original studies on the pediatric population that instrumentally assessed swallowing function using FEES. A hand-search of the references of included studies was performed. Data on the population, feasibility of endoscope insertion and bolus trials, adverse events, sensitivity and specificity, and FEES equipment and protocol were extracted. The quality of the studies was assessed using the checklists of the Johanna Briggs Institute. Selection of the studies, data extraction, and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Eighty-two reports from 81 studies were included. The mean overall quality of the studies was 80 % (17-100 %). The feasibility of endoscope insertion was high (89%-100 %), while the feasibility of bolus trials varied from 40 % to 100 %. Adverse events were excessive crying (8 studies), irritability or agitation (4 studies), transitory oxygen desaturations (3 studies, 1.2-6.7 % of the patients), epistaxis (3 studies, 0.8-3.3 % of the patients), increased heart rate (1 study, 1 patient), vomiting (1 study, 1 patient), hypertonia (1 study), and hypersalivation (1 study). No major complications were reported. Using VFSS as the reference standard, FEES was generally found to be less sensitive (25-94 %) but more specific (75-100 %) for aspiration, whereas the reverse was true for penetration (sensitivity 76-100 %, specificity 44-83 %). FEES protocols were highly heterogeneous with poor reporting. CONCLUSION: FEES is a safe, accurate, and generally feasible examination in the pediatric population with suspected dysphagia. However, a consensus on the best FEES protocol for clinical practice and research is currently lacking.

Normative Values for the Children Voice Handicap Index-10 (CVHI-10) and for the Children Voice Handicap Index-10 for Parents (CVHI-10-P).

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish normative data and cut-off scores for the Children Voice Handicap Index-10 (CVHI-10) and the Children Voice Handicap Index-10 for Parents (CVHI-10-P) METHODS: For normative data, CVHI-10 and CVHI-10-P questionnaires originally developed in the Italian language were completed by 201 children without dysphonia and with no history of voice disorders, and by 1 of their parents. The results were analyzed for mean, standard deviation (SD), and standard error of the mean (SEM) for both questionnaires. For cut-off values determination, data from 49 dysphonic children and from 1 of their parents were also used. This analysis was based on the sensitivity and specificity indicators of the questionnaires using the "receiver operating characteristic" (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Analysis of the questionnaires related to healthy children revealed a mean of 0.26 (SD 0.74; SEM 0.06) for CVHI-10 and a mean of 0.15 (SD 0.49; SEM 0.04) for CVHI-10-P for the normative values. ROC curve analysis allowed us to establish the cut-off scores of 2.5 for CVHI-10 and 1.5 for CVHI-10-P. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers normative data for CVHI-10 and CVHI-10-P and provides cut-off values for both questionnaires to distinguish healthy and pathologic responders.