Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Pich-E-Shemiran, Enghelab Ave., Tehran, 11489, Iran.
Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2023 Oct;280(10):4543-4553. doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08042-5. Epub 2023 Jun 21.
Although voice therapy (VT) has been known effective in muscle tension dysphonia (MTD), it is not obviously clear which VT approach is more effective. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Vocal Facilitating Techniques (VFTs), Manual Circumlaryngeal Therapy (MCT), and combined VT in teachers with MTD.
This study was a double-blind parallel randomized clinical trial. Thirty elementary female teachers with MTD were divided into three treatment groups including VFTs; MCT, and combined VT. In addition, vocal hygiene was presented to all groups. All participants received 10 individual 45-min sessions of VT twice a week. The effectiveness was assessed using Vocal Tract Discomfort (VTD) scale and Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI) before and after treatment and improvement measurement was calculated. The participants and data analyzer were blinded to the type of VT.
All groups showed significantly better results on the subscales of VTD scale and DSI score after VT (p ≤ 0.001; η2 ≥ 0.90). There was a significant difference between the three groups on the results of VTD scale and DSI score (p ≤ 0.05). The improvement measurement on the VTD severity subscale and DSI score following the combined VT was the greatest compared with other groups (η2 = 0.99 and 0.98, respectively). The significant interactive effect of treatment and time was observed on the VTD severity subscale and DSI score (p < 0.05; η2 ≥ 0.56).
This study showed that the VFTs, MCT, and combined VT were effective for MTD teachers, and the combined VT is the most effective one. It seems the combination of different approaches is recommended for the VT of MTD patients.
虽然语音治疗(VT)已被证明对肌肉紧张性发声障碍(MTD)有效,但哪种 VT 方法更有效尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较声乐促进技术(VFT)、手动环甲治疗(MCT)和联合 VT 在 MTD 教师中的有效性。
这是一项双盲平行随机临床试验。30 名患有 MTD 的小学女教师分为 VFT 组、MCT 组和联合 VT 组三个治疗组。此外,所有组均接受了声乐卫生教育。所有参与者均接受了 10 次个体 45 分钟的 VT 治疗,每周两次。在治疗前后使用声门不适量表(VTD)和发音障碍严重程度指数(DSI)评估疗效,并计算改善程度。参与者和数据分析者对 VT 的类型均不知情。
VT 后,所有组在 VTD 量表和 DSI 评分的子量表上均显示出显著改善(p≤0.001;η2≥0.90)。三组在 VTD 量表和 DSI 评分结果上存在显著差异(p≤0.05)。与其他组相比,联合 VT 组在 VTD 严重程度子量表和 DSI 评分上的改善程度最大(η2分别为 0.99 和 0.98)。在 VTD 严重程度子量表和 DSI 评分上,治疗和时间的显著交互作用(p<0.05;η2≥0.56)。
本研究表明,VFT、MCT 和联合 VT 对 MTD 教师均有效,且联合 VT 最有效。对于 MTD 患者的 VT,似乎推荐使用不同方法的联合。