Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Voice. 2017 May;31(3):385.e1-385.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.09.005. Epub 2016 Oct 18.

Efficacy of Water Resistance Therapy in Subjects Diagnosed With Behavioral Dysphonia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Author information

1
Department of Communication Sciences, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile; Department of Otolaryngology, Las Condes Clinic, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: guzmann.marcoa@gmail.com.
2
Department of Communication Sciences, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile; Department of Otolaryngology, Las Condes Clinic, Santiago, Chile.
3
University of Chile Hospital, Santiago, Chile.
4
Department of Communication Sciences, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
5
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
6
School of Education, Speech and Voice Research Laboratory, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The purpose of the present study was to determine the efficacy of water resistance therapy (WRT) in a long-term period of voice treatment in subjects diagnosed with voice disorders.

METHODS:

Twenty participants, with behavioral dysphonia, were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: (1) voice treatment with WRT, and (2) voice treatment with tube phonation with the distal end in air (TPA). Before and after voice therapy, participants underwent aerodynamic, electroglottographic, acoustic, and auditory-perceptual assessments. The Voice Handicap Index and self-assessment of resonant voice quality were also performed. The treatment included eight voice therapy sessions. For the WRT group, the exercises consisted of a sequence of five phonatory tasks performed with a drinking straw submerged 5 cm into water. For the TPA, the exercises consisted of the same phonatory tasks, and all of them were performed into the same straw but the distal end was in air.

RESULTS:

Wilcoxon test showed significant improvements for both groups for Voice Handicap Index (decrease), subglottic pressure (decrease), phonation threshold pressure (decrease), and self-perception of resonant voice quality (increase). Improvement in auditory-perceptual assessment was found only for the TPA group. No significant differences were found for any acoustic or electroglottographic variables. No significant differences were found between WRT and TPA groups for any variable.

CONCLUSIONS:

WRT and TPA may improve voice function and self-perceived voice quality in individuals with behavioral dysphonia. No differences between these therapy protocols should be expected.

KEYWORDS:

Phonation threshold pressure; Semi-occluded vocal tract; Subglottic pressure; Tube phonation; Voice therapy

PMID:
27769697
DOI:
10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.09.005
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center