Efficacy of Voice Therapy With Acapella Choice ® Device in Subjects With Vocal Fatigue Delivered Via Telepractice

Marco Guzman; Andrés Ortega; Camila Rocha; Lia Salgado; Camilo Quezada

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.07.027

Efficacy of Voice Therapy With Acapella Choice ® Device in Subjects With Vocal Fatigue Delivered Via Telepractice

J Voice. 2022 Sep 21:S0892-1997(22)00229-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.07.027. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Marco Guzman¹, Andrés Ortega², Camila Rocha³, Lia Salgado³, Camilo Quezada⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Universidad de los Andes, Chile, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: guzmann.marcoa@gmail.com.
² Department of Ear Nose and Throat, Clínica las Condes, Santiago, Chile.
³ Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Universidad de los Andes, Chile, Santiago, Chile.
⁴ Departamento de Fonoaudiología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

PMID: 36153205
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.07.027

Abstract

Purpose: The present study aimed at assessing the effectiveness of remote voice therapy (telepractice) implemented with Acapella Choice device in subjects with vocal fatigue.

Methods: Thirty participants with vocal fatigue were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: (1) voice treatment with acapella Choice device plus vocal hygiene program (n=15), and (2) voice treatment with Water resistance therapy plus vocal hygiene program (n=15). Laryngoscopic assessment was conducted in all subjects to confirm diagnosis. Before and after voice therapy, participants underwent self-assessment of voice. Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI), Voice Handicap Index (VHI), and Vocal tract discomfort scale (VTDS) were used. Treatment period included six voice therapy sessions within 3 weeks, with a frequency of two therapy sessions per week. Each session lasted 30 minutes. For both groups, exercises consisted of a sequence of nine phonatory tasks performed with Acapella Choice (experimental group) and WRT (control group). Comparison for all variables were performed between experimental group and control group.

Results: Significant improvements were found when comparing Pre and Post measures for both groups. No significant differences were found when comparing Acapella Choice group and WRT group.

Conclusion: Remote physiologic voice therapy with Acapella Choice device and water resistance therapy seem to be both effective to improve voice in subjects diagnosed with vocal fatigue. No differences should be expected between these therapeutic protocols when treating patients with vocal fatigue. Moreover, both are effective at reducing tiredness of voice, voice avoidance, physical discomfort associated with voicing, subjective perception of sensory discomfort in throat, and reduction of physical, emotional, and functional impact of voice problems.

Keywords: Acapella choice; Semioccluded vocal tract exercises; Vocal fatigue; Voice therapy; Voice training; Water resistance therapy.