Kena Liu1, Pingjiang Ge1,2, Xiaoli Sheng1, Jie Jiang1, Huabiao Qin3. 1. 1 Department of Laryngopharynx Head & Neck Maxillofacial Surgery, Guangdong General Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, South China University Technology, Guangzhou City, PR China. 2. 2 Southern Medical University, Guangzhou City, PR China. 3. 3 School of Electronic and Information Engineering, South China University Technology, Guangzhou City, PR China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We describe a survival nonstimulated in vivo canine phonation model using distending laryngoscope, cramp frame, and constant humidified glottal airflow to elicit phonation. METHODS: Five beagle dogs were involved in this study. One cuffed endotracheal tube was placed below the glottis through the tracheotomy and delivered humidified airflow to the glottis. Arytenoids approximation was maintained using a clamp under the distending laryngoscope. Acoustic and aerodynamic parameters were measured using synchronous signal collection system and analysis software. Vocal oscillation also was examined using stroboscope laryngeal imaging. RESULTS: For the nonstimulated in vivo phonation animal, the sound intensity and fundamental frequency were 78.3 ± 6.8 dB and 127.6 ± 29.2 Hz in the first experiment and 82.9 ± 6.6 dB and 175.2 ± 4.4 Hz 4 weeks later. The aerodynamic analysis revealed the mean subglottal phonation threshold pressure (PTP) and phonation threshold flow (PTF) were 8.5 ± 4.0 cmH20 and 683.0 ± 356.4 mL/s in the first experiment and 16.1 ± 8.6 cmH20 and 384.8.0 ± 230.6 mL/s in the second experiment 4 weeks later. Stroboscope image revealed sustained vocal vibration during great airflow delivery to glottis in the phonation animal model. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a survival nonstimulated in vivo phonation canine model that allows the study of long-term animal phonation study as its own control.
OBJECTIVES: We describe a survival nonstimulated in vivo canine phonation model using distending laryngoscope, cramp frame, and constant humidified glottal airflow to elicit phonation. METHODS: Five beagle dogs were involved in this study. One cuffed endotracheal tube was placed below the glottis through the tracheotomy and delivered humidified airflow to the glottis. Arytenoids approximation was maintained using a clamp under the distending laryngoscope. Acoustic and aerodynamic parameters were measured using synchronous signal collection system and analysis software. Vocal oscillation also was examined using stroboscope laryngeal imaging. RESULTS: For the nonstimulated in vivo phonation animal, the sound intensity and fundamental frequency were 78.3 ± 6.8 dB and 127.6 ± 29.2 Hz in the first experiment and 82.9 ± 6.6 dB and 175.2 ± 4.4 Hz 4 weeks later. The aerodynamic analysis revealed the mean subglottal phonation threshold pressure (PTP) and phonation threshold flow (PTF) were 8.5 ± 4.0 cmH20 and 683.0 ± 356.4 mL/s in the first experiment and 16.1 ± 8.6 cmH20 and 384.8.0 ± 230.6 mL/s in the second experiment 4 weeks later. Stroboscope image revealed sustained vocal vibration during great airflow delivery to glottis in the phonation animal model. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a survival nonstimulated in vivo phonation canine model that allows the study of long-term animal phonation study as its own control.
Authors: Fabian Thornton; Michael Döllinger; Stefan Kniesburges; David Berry; Christoph Alexiou; Anne Schützenberger Journal: Appl Sci (Basel) Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 2.679