Efficacy of water resistance therapy in subjects diagnosed with behavioral dysphonia: a randomized controlled trial
Author
dc.contributor.author
Guzmán, Marco
Author
dc.contributor.author
Jara, Rodrigo
Author
dc.contributor.author
Olavarria Leiva, Christian
Author
dc.contributor.author
Cáceres Rodríguez, Paloma
Author
dc.contributor.author
Escuti, Geordette
Author
dc.contributor.author
Medina, Fernanda
Author
dc.contributor.author
Medina, Laura
Author
dc.contributor.author
Madrid, Sofía
Author
dc.contributor.author
Muñoz, Daniel
Author
dc.contributor.author
Laukkanen, Anne Maria
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2018-05-16T21:20:51Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2018-05-16T21:20:51Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2017
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
Journal of Voice, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 385.e1–385.e10
es_ES
Identifier
dc.identifier.other
10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.09.005
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/147830
Abstract
dc.description.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.