Advertisement

Pressure and Flow Comparisons Across Vocal Pathologies

  • Linda Carroll
    Affiliations
    Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
    Search for articles by this author
  • Ann Rooney
    Affiliations
    Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York
    Search for articles by this author
  • Thomas J. Ow
    Affiliations
    Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York
    Search for articles by this author
  • Melin Tan
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Melin Tan, Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, 3400 Bainbridge Avenue, 3rd Floor, Bronx, NY 10536.
    Affiliations
    Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York

    Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York
    Search for articles by this author

      Summary

      Objective

      The aim of this study was to aid in the distinction among hyperadductive dysphonias by evaluating peak glottal pressure, release burst, and mid and final airflow values across repeated /pa/ syllable trains.

      Methods

      Sixty subjects were assessed for aerodynamic patterns during onset-offset for the /papapapapa/ task in modal voice. Subject groups included adductory spasmodic dysphonia (AdSD), benign vocal fold lesion, primary muscle tension dysphonia (MTD-1), secondary muscle tension dysphonia with an identifiable primary benign vocal fold lesion (MTD-2), vocal fold paresis or paralysis, and normal controls.

      Results

      Increased peak pressure (PP) was found for AdSD and MTD-2 subjects compared with controls. Release burst and mid airflow were not significantly different among groups. Final airflow was significantly higher for AdSD compared with the other groups. Final airflow was significantly lower for MTD-1.

      Conclusions

      Significant differences in aerodynamics are seen in subjects with AdSD compared to MTD. AdSD was characterized by higher PP and higher final airflow. MTD-1 was characterized by lower final airflow, whereas MTD-2 was characterized by higher PP. Aerodynamic evaluation may aid in differential diagnosis for those patients in whom distinction among hyperadductive disorders is challenging.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Dastolfo C.
        • Gartner-Schmidt J.
        • Yu L.
        • et al.
        Aerodynamic outcomes of four common voice disorders: moving toward disorder-specific assessment.
        J Voice. 2016; 30: 301-307
        • Zheng Y.Q.
        • Zhang B.R.
        • Su W.Y.
        • et al.
        Laryngeal aerodynamic analysis in assisting with the diagnosis of muscle tension dysphonia.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 177-181
        • Higgins M.B.
        • Chait D.H.
        • Schulte L.
        Phonatory air flow characteristics of adductor spasmodic dysphonia and muscle tension dysphonia.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999; 42: 101-111