A Systematic Review of Speech-Language Pathology Interventions for Presbyphonia Using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of voice disorders for people aged >65 years is four times higher than for the population at large. The most common cause of dysphonia in this group is presbyphonia, the preferred first-line treatment for which is voice therapy with a speech-language pathologist. This systematic review seeks to identify how voice therapy affects multidimensional voice outcomes in people with presbyphonia. METHODS: A systematic search of CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar was conducted in March 2023. Comparative and noncomparative studies of voice therapy in participants aged >50 years with presbyphonia were considered for inclusion. No limitations were placed on date or language of publication. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. Subgroup analysis was used to compare studies based on participant sex, intervention duration, study design, and intervention content. Interventions were specified using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) employing a consensus methodology among reviewers. The results were synthesized utilizing meta-analysis when outcomes were adequately specified and narrative analysis when they were not. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included with 1050 subjects (mean age: 72.5 ±â€¯8.6 years; 51% female). The most reported intervention was vocal function exercises. Per the RTSS, 14 interventions employed a predominantly Organ Functions approach, and the 14 remaining interventions employed a Skills & Habits approach. Meta-analysis confirmed posttherapy improvement in patient-related outcome measures of 0.93 standard mean difference (P < 0.00001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-1.17); studies with predominantly males and with longer treatment periods were associated with larger improvements, while randomized controlled trials reported more modest improvements. Meta-analysis also identified a mean posttherapy increase in maximum phonation time (MPT) of 5.37 seconds (P < 0.00001, 95% CI: 3.52-7.22). Treatments with an Organ Functions focus resulted in greater gains in MPT than those with a Skills & Habits focus (7.52 seconds versus 2.90 seconds). Finally, meta-analysis identified reductions in acoustic perturbation measures (jitter: 0.62%, P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.26%-0.97%; shimmer 1.05%, P < 0.00001, 95% CI: 0.67%-1.44%). Narrative synthesis further identified improvement in auditory-perceptual voice quality in all active treatment groups as well as improved glottal function in most studies that reported this. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the uncertainty around internal validity introduced by the inclusion of a wide range of study designs, there is convincing evidence that voice therapy for presbyphonia results in significant improvement in patient-reported, aerodynamic, acoustic, and expert-rated voice outcomes. Treatments with an Organ Functions focus may better address the underlying physiological deficits of presbyphonia, although future comparative studies with multidimensional voice assessment are warranted.

A Comparison of the Effects of Phonation into a Positive Expiratory Pressure Device and Silicone Tube in Water on the Vocal Mechanism.

OBJECTIVES: Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices have become an additional therapeutic approach for treating voice disorders. Similar to water resistance therapy (WRT), phonation in a PEP device introduces a secondary source of vibration within the vocal tract. This investigation aimed to compare the effects of phonation using a PEP device and silicone tube phonation (STP) commonly used in WRT on the vocal mechanism during phonation. METHODS: Three normophonic subjects participated in the study. High-speed videoendoscopy, pressure, airflow, electroglottography, and acoustic recordings were collected. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that phonation using both the PEP device and silicone tube induced alterations in glottal behavior. The PEP device produced more pronounced and consistent pressure oscillations, impacting the glottal cycle and influencing parameters including contact quotient (CQ), fundamental frequency, glottal area, pressure, and airflow. The regular vibratory mechanism of the PEP device systematically modified the glottal cycle. In STP, regular bubbling at lower depths of submersion produced higher CQ values, supporting the efficacy of deep bubbling exercises for inducing glottal adduction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that phonation using PEP devices has a more pronounced impact on the vocal tract and glottis. It also provides a stronger massage effect that directly affects the glottal source. Phonation with a silicone tube produces similar results, although to a lesser extent and with lower regularity. These findings offer guidance in the selection of voice therapy devices.

The use of basic fibroblast growth factor to improve vocal function: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis examines if intralaryngeal injection of basic fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) can improve voice outcomes in those with vocal disability. DESIGN: A Systematic review of original human studies reporting voice outcomes following intra-laryngeal injection of basic fibroblast growth factor 2 in those with vocal dysfunction. Databases searched were Medline (1946-July 2022), Embase (1947-July 2022), Cochrane database and Google Scholar. SETTING: Secondary or tertiary care centres that undertook the management of voice pathology Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were original human studies reporting voice outcome measurements following intralaryngeal injection of FGF2 to treat vocal fold atrophy, vocal fold scarring, vocal fold sulcus or vocal fold palsy. Articles not written in English, studies that did not include human subjects and studies where voice outcome measures were not recorded before and after FGF2 injection were excluded from the review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was maximum phonation time. Secondary outcome measures included acoustic analysis, glottic closure, mucosal wave formation, voice handicap index and GRBAS scale. RESULTS: Fourteen articles were included out of a search of 1023 and one article was included from scanning reference lists. All studies had a single arm design without control groups. Conditions treated were vocal fold atrophy (n = 186), vocal cord paralysis (n = 74), vocal fold fibrosis (n = 74) and vocal fold sulcus (n = 56). A meta-analysis of six articles reporting on the use of FGF2 in patients with vocal fold atrophy showed a significant increase of mean maximum phonation time of 5.2 s (95% CI: 3.4-7.0) at 3-6 months following injection. A significant improvement in maximum phonation time, voice handicap index and glottic closure was found following injection in most studies assessed. No major adverse events were reported following injection. CONCLUSIONS: To date, intralaryngeal injection of basic FGF2 appears to be safe and it may be able to improve voice outcomes in those with vocal dysfunction, especially vocal fold atrophy. Randomised controlled trials are needed to further evaluate efficacy and support the wider use of this therapy.

Mitigation of Respirable Aerosol Particles from Speech and Language Therapy Exercises.

INTRODUCTION: Phonation and speech are known sources of respirable aerosol in humans. Voice assessment and treatment manipulate all the subsystems of voice production, and previous work (Saccente-Kennedy et al., 2022) has demonstrated such activities can generate >10 times more aerosol than conversational speech and 30 times more aerosol than breathing. Aspects of voice therapy may therefore be considered aerosol generating procedures and pose a greater risk of potential airborne pathogen (eg, SARS-CoV-2) transmission than typical speech. Effective mitigation measures may be required to ensure safe service delivery for therapist and patient. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing detectable respirable aerosol produced by voice assessment/therapy. METHODS: We recruited 15 healthy participants (8 cis-males, 7 cis-females), 9 of whom were voice-specialist speech-language pathologists. Optical Particle Sizers (OPS) (Model 3330, TSI) were used to measure the number concentration of respirable aerosol particles (0.3 µm-10 µm) generated during a selection of voice assessment/therapy tasks, both with and without mitigation measures in place. Measurements were performed in a laminar flow operating theatre, with near-zero background aerosol concentration, allowing us to quantify the number concentration of respiratory aerosol particles produced. Mitigation measures included the wearing of Type IIR fluid resistant surgical masks, wrapping the same masks around the end of straws, and the use of heat and moisture exchange microbiological filters (HMEFs) for a water resistance therapy (WRT) task. RESULTS: All unmitigated therapy tasks produced more aerosol than unmasked breathing or speaking. Mitigation strategies reduced detectable aerosol from all tasks to a level significantly below, or no different to, that of unmasked breathing. Pooled filtration efficiencies determined that Type IIR surgical masks reduced detectable aerosol by 90%. Surgical masks wrapped around straws reduced detectable aerosol by 96%. HMEF filters were 100% effective in mitigating the aerosol from WRT, the exercise that generated more aerosol than any other task in the unmitigated condition. CONCLUSIONS: Voice therapy and assessment causes the release of significant quantities of respirable aerosol. However, simple mitigation strategies can reduce emitted aerosol concentrations to levels comparable to unmasked breathing.

Quantification of Respirable Aerosol Particles from Speech and Language Therapy Exercises.

INTRODUCTION: Voice assessment and treatment involve the manipulation of all the subsystems of voice production, and may lead to production of respirable aerosol particles that pose a greater risk of potential viral transmission via inhalation of respirable pathogens (eg, SARS-CoV-2) than quiet breathing or conversational speech. OBJECTIVE: To characterise the production of respirable aerosol particles during a selection of voice assessment therapy tasks. METHODS: We recruited 23 healthy adult participants (12 males, 11 females), 11 of whom were speech-language pathologists specialising in voice disorders. We used an aerodynamic and an optical particle sizer to measure the number concentration and particle size distributions of respirable aerosols generated during a variety of voice assessment and therapy tasks. The measurements were carried out in a laminar flow operating theatre, with a near-zero background aerosol concentration, allowing us to quantify the number concentration and size distributions of respirable aerosol particles produced from assessment/therapy tasks studied. RESULTS: Aerosol number concentrations generated while performing assessment/therapy tasks were log-normally distributed among individuals with no significant differences between professionals (speech-language pathologists) and non-professionals or between males and females. Activities produced up to 32 times the aerosol number concentration of breathing and 24 times that of speech at 70-80 dBA. In terms of aerosol mass, activities produced up to 163 times the mass concentration of breathing and up to 36 times the mass concentration of speech. Voicing was a significant factor in aerosol production; aerosol number/mass concentrations generated during the voiced activities were 1.1-5 times higher than their unvoiced counterpart activities. Additionally, voiced activities produced bigger respirable aerosol particles than their unvoiced variants except the trills. Humming generated higher aerosol concentrations than sustained /a/, fricatives, speaking (70-80 dBA), and breathing. Oscillatory semi-occluded vocal tract exercises (SOVTEs) generated higher aerosol number/mass concentrations than the activities without oscillation. Water resistance therapy (WRT) generated the most aerosol of all activities, ∼10 times higher than speaking at 70-80 dBA and >30 times higher than breathing. CONCLUSIONS: All activities generated more aerosol than breathing, although a sizeable minority were no different to speaking. Larger number concentrations and larger particle sizes appear to be generated by activities with higher suspected airflows, with the greatest involving intraoral pressure oscillation and/or an oscillating oral articulation (WRT or trilling).

A comparison of respiratory particle emission rates at rest and while speaking or exercising.

Background: The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the prohibition of group-based exercise and the cancellation of sporting events. Evaluation of respiratory aerosol emissions is necessary to quantify exercise-related transmission risk and inform mitigation strategies. Methods: Aerosol mass emission rates are calculated from concurrent aerosol and ventilation data, enabling absolute comparison. An aerodynamic particle sizer (0.54-20 µm diameter) samples exhalate from within a cardiopulmonary exercise testing mask, at rest, while speaking and during cycle ergometer-based exercise. Exercise challenge testing is performed to replicate typical gym-based exercise and very vigorous exercise, as determined by a preceding maximally exhaustive exercise test. Results: We present data from 25 healthy participants (13 males, 12 females; 36.4 years). The size of aerosol particles generated at rest and during exercise is similar (unimodal ~0.57-0.71 µm), whereas vocalization also generated aerosol particles of larger size (i.e. was bimodal ~0.69 and ~1.74 µm). The aerosol mass emission rate during speaking (0.092 ng s-1; minute ventilation (VE) 15.1 L min-1) and vigorous exercise (0.207 ng s-1, p = 0.726; VE 62.6 L min-1) is similar, but lower than during very vigorous exercise (0.682 ng s-1, p < 0.001; VE 113.6 L min-1). Conclusions: Vocalisation drives greater aerosol mass emission rates, compared to breathing at rest. Aerosol mass emission rates in exercise rise with intensity. Aerosol mass emission rates during vigorous exercise are no different from speaking at a conversational level. Mitigation strategies for airborne pathogens for non-exercise-based social interactions incorporating vocalisation, may be suitable for the majority of exercise settings. However, the use of facemasks when exercising may be less effective, given the smaller size of particles produced.

Pressure, Flow, and Glottal Area Waveform Profile Changes During Phonation Using the Acapella Choice Device.

INTRODUCTION: Vibratory positive expiratory pressure (PEP) devices are now commonly used as a resource for voice therapy. PEP devices promote improved vocal economy with the added benefit of producing a massage effect in the vocal tract. Although the benefits of PEP devices for voice have already been demonstrated, their impact on the vocal source is still not very clear. This study assesses the impact of phonation into the Acapella Choice (a type of PEP device) on the voice. METHODS: Three normophonic subjects underwent high-speed videoendoscopy assessment while pressure, flow and electroglottographic data was collected. RESULTS: Phonation into the Acapella device produces large changes in the pressure and flow profiles consequently affecting the voice source. In specific, when intraoral pressure increases as a consequence of the downward movement of the rocker arm in the Acapella device (reduction of the airflow outlet), phonation is hindered, demonstrated by the lower amplitude of vibration of the vocal folds and weaker modulation of the pressure and flow values by the glottal cycle. When the rocker arm in the Acapella device opens (increasing the airflow outlet), the opposite trend is observed where vocal fold vibration is aided and the modulation of pressure and flow by the vocal cycle increases. Based on the pressure and flow signals, we can assume that the impedance of the vocal tract alternates between two dominant regimes: increased inertive reactance (aided vibration) and increased resistance (hindered vibration). CONCLUSIONS: PEP devices, such as the Acapella device, are efficient in modulating the pressure and flow profiles in the vocal tract leading to the alternation of glottal vibration from aided to hindered. These changes in the glottal vibration can be considered an additional consequence of the massage effect caused by the Acapella device.

A Pilot Study Assessing the Therapeutic Potential of a Vibratory Positive Expiratory Pressure Device (Acapella Choice) in the Treatment of Voice Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Semioccluded vocal tract exercises (SOVTEs) can involve a single source of vibration (eg, vocal folds in the straw exercise) or a dual source of vibration (eg, vocal folds and water bubbling in tube phonation) in the vocal tract. Oftentimes, this secondary source of vibration causes large oscillations in intraoral pressure and has been likened to a "massage effect." This study assesses the implementation of a positive expiratory pressure device (Acapella Choice) as a possible alternative SOVTE, which presents a secondary source of vibration without the need of a water container. METHODS: Twenty-two normophonic participants underwent acoustic, electroglottographic, and aerodynamic assessment before, during, and after phonation with two different established SOTVEs (silicone tube in water and straw in air) in addition to Acapella Choice. RESULTS: Acapella Choice produced the largest peak-to-peak amplitudes of intraoral pressure oscillation. Straw in air produced the largest static intraoral pressure. Straw in air and Acapella Choice presented significantly larger ranges of static pressures than tube in water phonation. Post-exercise condition showed a statistically larger sound pressure level for Acapella Choice. CONCLUSIONS: Positive expiratory pressure devices, such as Acapella Choice, may be a promising alternative to established SOVTEs as it promotes large oscillatory pressures in the vocal tract without the need for a water container. This exercise also produces larger sound pressure level with no significant changes in glottic contact quotient, indicating improved vocal economy.