The Experts below are selected from a list of 15 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ramon A Franco - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the poor validity of asymmetric laryngoscopic findings in predicting laterality in vocal fold paresis
Journal of Voice, 2020Co-Authors: Sungjin A Song, Alena Santeerapharp, Ghiath Alnouri, Jin Park, Robert T Sataloff, Ramon A FrancoAbstract:Summary Objective To determine the laryngoscopic findings most predictive of laterality in vocal fold paresis in patients with known RLN and/or SLN paresis by laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). Study design Blinded, prospective video perceptual analysis study. Methods Patients with vocal fold paresis diagnosed by LEMG at a tertiary care hospital from 2017 to 2019 were identified. Two fellowship-trained laryngologists blinded to clinical history and LEMG results reviewed laryngostroboscopic examinations and assessed for evidence of paresis using defined criteria. Inclusion criteria were adults with laryngeal asymmetry and evidence of decreased recruitment on LEMG. Exclusion criteria were children, presence of laryngeal lesions, myasthenia gravis, vocal fold paralysis, and normal laryngeal symmetry. Results We identified 95 patients who were diagnosed with vocal fold paresis with LEMG who met inclusion and exclusion criteria (mean age 43.8 ± 20.4 years (18-88), 38.9% male). When comparing the laterality of the observed laryngoscopic finding with LEMG, we found that in patients who had severe true vocal fold (TVF) range of motion disturbance, the laterality of the finding matched the LEMG distribution of paresis in 12 out of 13 (92.3%) patients (P = 0.002). No other laryngoscopic findings reliably predicted laterality including corniculate and Cuneiform Cartilage asymmetry, pyriform sinus dilation, abnormal TVF show, petiole deviation, abnormal ventricular show, increased supraglottic area, and FVF hyperfunction of the opposite side. Conclusion With the exception of severe TVF range of motion disturbance, there seems to be poor validity of laryngoscopic findings in predicting the affected side in vocal fold paresis. We recommend neurophysiologic testing to confirm the clinical diagnosis of vocal fold paresis.
Sungjin A Song - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the poor validity of asymmetric laryngoscopic findings in predicting laterality in vocal fold paresis
Journal of Voice, 2020Co-Authors: Sungjin A Song, Alena Santeerapharp, Ghiath Alnouri, Jin Park, Robert T Sataloff, Ramon A FrancoAbstract:Summary Objective To determine the laryngoscopic findings most predictive of laterality in vocal fold paresis in patients with known RLN and/or SLN paresis by laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). Study design Blinded, prospective video perceptual analysis study. Methods Patients with vocal fold paresis diagnosed by LEMG at a tertiary care hospital from 2017 to 2019 were identified. Two fellowship-trained laryngologists blinded to clinical history and LEMG results reviewed laryngostroboscopic examinations and assessed for evidence of paresis using defined criteria. Inclusion criteria were adults with laryngeal asymmetry and evidence of decreased recruitment on LEMG. Exclusion criteria were children, presence of laryngeal lesions, myasthenia gravis, vocal fold paralysis, and normal laryngeal symmetry. Results We identified 95 patients who were diagnosed with vocal fold paresis with LEMG who met inclusion and exclusion criteria (mean age 43.8 ± 20.4 years (18-88), 38.9% male). When comparing the laterality of the observed laryngoscopic finding with LEMG, we found that in patients who had severe true vocal fold (TVF) range of motion disturbance, the laterality of the finding matched the LEMG distribution of paresis in 12 out of 13 (92.3%) patients (P = 0.002). No other laryngoscopic findings reliably predicted laterality including corniculate and Cuneiform Cartilage asymmetry, pyriform sinus dilation, abnormal TVF show, petiole deviation, abnormal ventricular show, increased supraglottic area, and FVF hyperfunction of the opposite side. Conclusion With the exception of severe TVF range of motion disturbance, there seems to be poor validity of laryngoscopic findings in predicting the affected side in vocal fold paresis. We recommend neurophysiologic testing to confirm the clinical diagnosis of vocal fold paresis.
Gislaine Ferro Cordeiro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparative analysis of the amplitude of vibration of the vocal folds and the coefficient of contact during the utterance of the sustained vowel / ? / and the lips and tongue trills
Universidade de São Paulo, 2010Co-Authors: Gislaine Ferro CordeiroAbstract:Os exercícios de vibração sonorizada são utilizados amplamente tanto para o tratamento de disfonias como na preparação vocal dos profissionais da voz. Ainda são escassas as pesquisas que estudam a fisiologia vocal durante o exercício. O objetivo deste estudo é comparar as diferenças na vibração cordal durante a execução dos exercícios de vibração sonorizada de lábios, de língua e na emissão da vogal /?/ sustentada quanto à amplitude de vibração das pregas vocais e às medidas de coeficiente de contato, em cantores líricos profissionais. Para tal, foram selecionados 10 cantores líricos com domínio laríngeo e das técnicas estudadas. Os sujeitos foram treinados a emitir a vogal /?/ sustentada, a vibração sonorizada de lábios e a de língua no quinto tom acima do mais grave possível de ser produzido e nas mesmas intensidades (fraca e forte). Os indivíduos foram submetidos à nasofibroestroboscopia, na qual foi extraída as imagens da amplitude máxima de vibração das pregas vocais, tomando como referência os valores da medida da Cartilagem Cuneiforme. Além disso, foram submetidos à eletroglotografia, de onde foram extraídas as medidas automáticas da média e do desvio padrão do coeficiente de contato. A amplitude de vibração cordal teve a proporção média da Cartilagem Cuneiforme de 0,11 para emissão da vogal /?/, 0,16 para a vibração sonorizada de lábios e 0,17 para a vibração sonorizada de língua, nas fracas intensidades e, respectivamente, 0,16, 0, 29 e 0,26 nas fortes intensidades. Após teste estatístico, percebeu-se diferença nessa medida entre as vibrações sonorizadas de língua e de lábios em relação à vogal /?/ sustentada. A média entre os sujeitos da medida de média do coeficiente de contato foi de 47,72, 50,97 e 52,25 para a vogal /?/ sustentada, vibração sonorizada de lábios e vibração sonorizada de língua nas fracas intensidades e, respectivamente, 50,71, 59,21 e 54,60 para as fortes intensidades. Para essa medida, a vibração sonorizada de lábios se diferenciou da vibração sonorizada de língua e da vogal /?/ sustentada somente nas fortes intensidades. Quanto à média da medida de desvio padrão do coeficiente de contato, os valores para vogal /?/, vibração sonorizada de lábios e vibração sonorizada de língua nas fracas intensidades foram de 3,12, 6,55 e 7,63. Nas fortes intensidades os respectivos valores foram de 1,62, 6,64 e 4,75, sendo que, em ambas as intensidades, as vibrações sonorizadas se diferenciaram da emissão da vogal /?/ sustentada. Concluímos que em cantores líricos profissionais, a vibração sonorizada de lábios e de língua se diferenciam da vogal /?/ sustentada quanto à amplitude máxima de vibração cordal e ao desvio padrão do coeficiente de contato. A média do coeficiente de contato diferencia a vibração sonorizada de lábios da de língua somente nas fortes intensidades.Exercises of audible vibration are widely used for the treatment of dysphonia and vocal preparation of professional voice users. There is little research done studying vocal physiology during exercise. The aim of this study is to compare the differences in cordal vibration during the exercises of lips and tongue trills and the sustained vowel / ? / as to the extent of vocal fold vibration and the measures of coefficient of contact in professional opera singers. To this end, ten classical singers --reportedly in perfect laryngeal health and mastery, as well as having expert skill in the techniques studied, served as subjects for this study. The subjects were trained to deliver the sustained vowel / ? /, the lips and tongue trills on the 5th tone up the lowest pitch possible to be produced and in the same intensities (weak and strong), selected in advance. The subjects underwent nasofibroestroboscopy, from which images of the maximum amplitude of vibration of the vocal folds were obtained, having as a reference the values of the Cuneiform Cartilage. In addition, subjects were also submitted to electroglottography, from which the automatic measurements of the mean and standard deviation of the coefficient of contact were taken. The comparison of the results was cross-reference among subjects and strong or weak intensities were compared between them. The amplitude of cordal vibration had the median proportion of the Cuneiform Cartilage from 0.11 to vowel / ? /, 0.16 for the lip trill and 0.17 for the tongue trill, in the weak intensities, and 0.16, 0, 29 and 0.26 in the strong intensities respectively. After statistical analysis we noted the difference in this measure between the tongue trill and of the lips trill concerning the sustained vowel / ? / . The mean among the subjects of the measurement, of mean contact coefficient was 47.72, 50.97 and 52.25 for the sustained vowel / ? / ,lip trill and tongue trill in weak intensity 50 , 71, 59.21 and 54.60 for strong intensities respectively. To this measure, the lip trill differed from the tongue trill and the sustained vowel / ? / only when in the strong intensities. Regarding the mean measure of standard deviation of coefficient of contact values for sustained vowel / ? /, lip trill and tongue trill in weak intensity were 3.12, 6.55 and 7.63. In strong intensities in the respective values were 1.62, 6.64 and 4.75, and in both intensities, vibrations accompanying sounds were differentiated from the utterance of the sustained vowel / ? / . We concluded that in professional opera singers, the lip and tongue trills are different from the sustained vowel / ? /regarding the maximum amplitude of cordal vibration and the standard deviation of the coefficient of contact. The mean coefficient of contact differs from the lip and tongue trills, only in the strong intensities
Alena Santeerapharp - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the poor validity of asymmetric laryngoscopic findings in predicting laterality in vocal fold paresis
Journal of Voice, 2020Co-Authors: Sungjin A Song, Alena Santeerapharp, Ghiath Alnouri, Jin Park, Robert T Sataloff, Ramon A FrancoAbstract:Summary Objective To determine the laryngoscopic findings most predictive of laterality in vocal fold paresis in patients with known RLN and/or SLN paresis by laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). Study design Blinded, prospective video perceptual analysis study. Methods Patients with vocal fold paresis diagnosed by LEMG at a tertiary care hospital from 2017 to 2019 were identified. Two fellowship-trained laryngologists blinded to clinical history and LEMG results reviewed laryngostroboscopic examinations and assessed for evidence of paresis using defined criteria. Inclusion criteria were adults with laryngeal asymmetry and evidence of decreased recruitment on LEMG. Exclusion criteria were children, presence of laryngeal lesions, myasthenia gravis, vocal fold paralysis, and normal laryngeal symmetry. Results We identified 95 patients who were diagnosed with vocal fold paresis with LEMG who met inclusion and exclusion criteria (mean age 43.8 ± 20.4 years (18-88), 38.9% male). When comparing the laterality of the observed laryngoscopic finding with LEMG, we found that in patients who had severe true vocal fold (TVF) range of motion disturbance, the laterality of the finding matched the LEMG distribution of paresis in 12 out of 13 (92.3%) patients (P = 0.002). No other laryngoscopic findings reliably predicted laterality including corniculate and Cuneiform Cartilage asymmetry, pyriform sinus dilation, abnormal TVF show, petiole deviation, abnormal ventricular show, increased supraglottic area, and FVF hyperfunction of the opposite side. Conclusion With the exception of severe TVF range of motion disturbance, there seems to be poor validity of laryngoscopic findings in predicting the affected side in vocal fold paresis. We recommend neurophysiologic testing to confirm the clinical diagnosis of vocal fold paresis.
Ghiath Alnouri - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the poor validity of asymmetric laryngoscopic findings in predicting laterality in vocal fold paresis
Journal of Voice, 2020Co-Authors: Sungjin A Song, Alena Santeerapharp, Ghiath Alnouri, Jin Park, Robert T Sataloff, Ramon A FrancoAbstract:Summary Objective To determine the laryngoscopic findings most predictive of laterality in vocal fold paresis in patients with known RLN and/or SLN paresis by laryngeal electromyography (LEMG). Study design Blinded, prospective video perceptual analysis study. Methods Patients with vocal fold paresis diagnosed by LEMG at a tertiary care hospital from 2017 to 2019 were identified. Two fellowship-trained laryngologists blinded to clinical history and LEMG results reviewed laryngostroboscopic examinations and assessed for evidence of paresis using defined criteria. Inclusion criteria were adults with laryngeal asymmetry and evidence of decreased recruitment on LEMG. Exclusion criteria were children, presence of laryngeal lesions, myasthenia gravis, vocal fold paralysis, and normal laryngeal symmetry. Results We identified 95 patients who were diagnosed with vocal fold paresis with LEMG who met inclusion and exclusion criteria (mean age 43.8 ± 20.4 years (18-88), 38.9% male). When comparing the laterality of the observed laryngoscopic finding with LEMG, we found that in patients who had severe true vocal fold (TVF) range of motion disturbance, the laterality of the finding matched the LEMG distribution of paresis in 12 out of 13 (92.3%) patients (P = 0.002). No other laryngoscopic findings reliably predicted laterality including corniculate and Cuneiform Cartilage asymmetry, pyriform sinus dilation, abnormal TVF show, petiole deviation, abnormal ventricular show, increased supraglottic area, and FVF hyperfunction of the opposite side. Conclusion With the exception of severe TVF range of motion disturbance, there seems to be poor validity of laryngoscopic findings in predicting the affected side in vocal fold paresis. We recommend neurophysiologic testing to confirm the clinical diagnosis of vocal fold paresis.
