Correlations Between Anxiety and/or Depression Diagnoses and Dysphagia Severity.

OBJECTIVE: An increased prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders in patients with dysphagia has been noted previously, but whether dysphagia severity may be exacerbated by anxiety and depression has never been studied before. The purpose of this study is to identify the effect of pre-existing diagnosis of anxiety and/or depression (anxiety/depression) on the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10), a validated patient-reported outcome measure for dysphagia. We hypothesized that patients with dysphagia and normal instrumental evaluation have higher EAT-10 score in the presence of pre-existing anxiety and depression. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients seen at the multi-disciplinary dysphagia clinic of an urban academic institution. EAT-10 scores and pre-existing diagnoses of anxiety/depression were collected at the first visit with laryngologists. The two-sample t-test was used to compare mean EAT-10 scores between the anxiety/depression and no anxiety/depression groups, stratified by swallowing dysfunction etiology. RESULTS: The study included 290 consecutive patients seen starting in January 2018. In this cohort, 60 (21%) had pre-existing anxiety, 49 (17%) depression, and 36 (12%) both. Overall, 59 patients had normal swallowing based on instrumental swallowing testing (flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, videofluoroscopic swallow study, esophagram, or esophagoscopy). Among those, mean EAT-10 score was significantly higher in patients with anxiety and/or depression (n = 30) (14.63, SD = 11.42) compared to those with no anxiety and/or depression (n = 29) (8.93, SD = 6.59) (p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: While anxiety/depression may aggravate dysphagia in patients with normal swallowing function, this correlation may not hold in those with objective swallowing dysfunction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 134:2115-2120, 2024.

Virtual Reality for Pain Management During High-Resolution Manometry: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: High-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders. HRM is typically performed in the office with local anesthesia only, and many patients find it unpleasant and painful. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of the use of a virtual reality (VR) headset on pain and anxiety outcomes in patients with dysphagia undergoing HRM. METHODS: Patients with dysphagia were prospectively recruited and randomized to undergo HRM with and without VR distraction. Data collected included the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-6 (STAI-6), the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, heart rate, and galvanic skin response (GSR) tracings. RESULTS: Forty subjects completed the study, including 20 subjects in the intervention arm and 20 in the control arm. There was evidence of a significant positive effect of VR on calmness (p = 0.0095) STAI-6 rating, as well as on physiologic measures of pain with significantly decreased GSR rise time (p = 0.0137) and average rate of change of conductance change (p = 0.0035). CONCLUSION: The use of VR during HRM catheter insertion increased calmness compared to control. Change of skin conductance was also reduced in the VR group, suggesting decreased physiologic pain. This study supports the consideration of the use of VR as a distraction tool to improve patient comfort during HRM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 134:1118-1126, 2024.

Concurrent Validity of a Low-Cost Manometer for Objective Assessments of Respiratory Muscle Strength.

OBJECTIVE(S): This study examined the agreement in maximal expiratory (MEP) and inspiratory (MIP) pressure readings between two digital manometers: (1) the MicroRPM - the gold-standard manometer for respiratory muscle strength testing; and (2) the LDM - a low-cost, commercially available, alternative manometer. METHODS: Positive (MEP) and negative (MIP) pressures were simultaneously applied to the MicroRPM and LDM using a 3-liter syringe within a controlled laboratory setting. Pressure readings were compared, and agreement was analyzed using Lin's concordance correlation (ρc ). Agreement was interpreted as 'poor' if <0.90, 'moderate' if 0.90 - <0.95, 'substantial' if 0.95 - <0.99, and 'excellent' if ≥0.99. Twenty percent of the pressure trials were repeated by a second researcher to examine test-retest reliability. RESULTS: A total of 150 trials were completed, ranging from -167 to +208 cmH2 O. There was a median absolute difference of 0.3 cmH2 O in pressure readings between the MicroRPM and the LDM. Lin's concordance correlation revealed 'excellent' agreement between the LDM and MicroRPM devices, with test-retest reliability assessment revealing 'substantial-to-excellent' agreement between the LDM and MicroRPM devices, with a concordance correlation coefficient of ρc = 0.999 (95% CI: 0.999-0.999). CONCLUSIONS: There was a median difference of 1.0% in MEP and MIP pressure readings consistently observed between the LDM and MicroRPM. Despite these relatively small differences, excellent agreement between the two manometers was present. These data suggest the LDM may be a valid, lower cost alternative to the MicroRPM for objectively assessing respiratory strength in clinical practice; however, additional research is needed in healthy adults and in patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:1831-1836, 2024.

Concurrent Validity of the IOPI and Tongueometer Orofacial Strength Measurement Devices.

OBJECTIVE(S): This study examined the concurrent validity of two orofacial strength manometers: (1) the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (IOPI) - the current, gold standard orofacial manometer; and (2) the Tongueometer - a newly-available, lower cost, orofacial manometer. METHODS: This study compared IOPI and Tongueometer pressure readings across three experimental conditions. Experiment 1 compared full setup (manometer + tongue bulb) pressure readings between the IOPI and Tongueometer. Experiment 2 compared IOPI tongue bulb and Tongueometer tongue bulb pressure readings, while controlling for manometer. Experiment 3 compared IOPI manometer and Tongueometer manometer pressure readings, while controlling for tongue bulb. Pressures were applied manually within a laboratory setting. Lin's concordance correlation (ρc ) was used to calculate level of agreement, with ρc interpreted as 'poor' if <0.90, 'moderate' if 0.90 to <0.95, 'substantial' if 0.95 to <0.99, and 'excellent' if ≥0.99. RESULTS: 539 trials were analyzed. There was a median absolute difference of 2.4 kPa in pressure readings between the IOPI and Tongueometer full setups (manometer + tongue bulb). Correlations revealed substantial agreement between IOPI and Tongueometer full setups (experiment 1: n = 292; ρc = 0.986), tongue bulbs (experiment 2: n = 146; ρc = 0.987-0.992), and manometers (experiment 3: n = 101; ρc = 0.970). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in pressures were consistently observed between the Tongueometer and IOPI. Despite these differences, substantial agreement was present. These data suggest the Tongueometer may be a valid, lower cost alternative to the IOPI for objectively assessing orofacial strength in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2 Laryngoscope, 133:3123-3131, 2023.

Are Mobile Applications in Laryngology Designed for All Patients?

OBJECTIVES: Mobile applications (apps) are multiplying in laryngology, with little standardization of content, functionality, or accessibility. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality, functionality, health literacy, readability, accessibility, and inclusivity of laryngology mobile applications. METHODS: Of the 3230 apps identified from the Apple and Google Play stores, 28 patient-facing apps met inclusion criteria. Apps were evaluated using validated scales assessing quality and functionality: the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and the Institute for Healthcare Informatics App Functionality Scale. The Clear Communication Index (CDC) Institute of Medicine Strategies for Creating Health Literate Mobile Applications, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) were used to evaluate apps health literacy level. Readability was assessed using established readability formulas. Apps were evaluated for language, accessibility features, and representation of a diverse population. RESULTS: Twenty-six apps (92%) had adequate quality (MARS score > 3). The mean PEMAT score was 89% for actionability and 86% for understandability. On average, apps utilized 25/33 health literate strategies. Twenty-two apps (79%) did not pass the CDC index threshold of 90% for health literacy. Twenty-four app descriptions (86%) were above an 8th grade reading level. Only 4 apps (14%) showed diverse representation, 3 (11%) had non-English language functions, and 2 (7%) offered subtitles. Inter-rater reliability for MARS was adequate (CA-ICC = 0.715). CONCLUSION: While most apps scored well in quality and functionality, many laryngology apps did not meet standards for health literacy. Most apps were written at a reading level above the national average, lacked accessibility features, and did not represent diverse populations. Laryngoscope, 133:1540-1549, 2023.