Ben Barsties V Latoszek1. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium. Electronic address: ben.barsties@t-online.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to explore the effectiveness of the five-week Novafon local vibration voice therapy (NLVVT) program with and without Novafon local vibration for dysphonia treatment. METHODS:Twenty-two voice-disordered subjects were divided into two groups. The intervention group (IG) performed the NLVVT program and the control group (CG) had the same voice exercises of this program without local vibration. RESULTS: After NLVVT, the IG showed significantly high results in all parameters of acoustics, multiparametric indices, and self-evaluation (all P values < 0.01). The CG revealed mostly much significantly lower results (P values < 0.05) or nonsignificant results for these parameters after the treatment. The intergroup comparison under consideration before and after NLVVT showed a large and significant treatment effect in voice quality (ie, narrowband spectrograms, and Acoustic Voice Quality Index), in which the IG had better treatment results. The aerodynamic measurement showed no significant changes for both groups after NLVVT (P value > 0.05). CONCLUSION: After the NLVVT program both groups showed significant improvements of various voice measurements, in which the IG revealed better treatment results than the CG. However, next to voice exercises an extra benefit for local vibration with the Novafon appliance was assessed in voice quality.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to explore the effectiveness of the five-week Novafon local vibration voice therapy (NLVVT) program with and without Novafon local vibration for dysphonia treatment. METHODS: Twenty-two voice-disordered subjects were divided into two groups. The intervention group (IG) performed the NLVVT program and the control group (CG) had the same voice exercises of this program without local vibration. RESULTS: After NLVVT, the IG showed significantly high results in all parameters of acoustics, multiparametric indices, and self-evaluation (all P values < 0.01). The CG revealed mostly much significantly lower results (P values < 0.05) or nonsignificant results for these parameters after the treatment. The intergroup comparison under consideration before and after NLVVT showed a large and significant treatment effect in voice quality (ie, narrowband spectrograms, and Acoustic Voice Quality Index), in which the IG had better treatment results. The aerodynamic measurement showed no significant changes for both groups after NLVVT (P value > 0.05). CONCLUSION: After the NLVVT program both groups showed significant improvements of various voice measurements, in which the IG revealed better treatment results than the CG. However, next to voice exercises an extra benefit for local vibration with the Novafon appliance was assessed in voice quality.