Muscle tension dysphonia in patients who use computerized speech recognition systems.

The use of speech recognition systems as a replacement for other types of transcription systems is increasing rapidly, partly because many people are unable to use conventional keyboards as a result of upper-extremity repetitive strain injury (RSI). However, the frequent or continuous use of such systems can cause muscle tension dysphonia in some patients. The scientific literature suggests that there is an association between upper-extremity RSI and muscle tension dysphonia. We present a retrospective case series of five patients with workplace upper-extremity RSI who developed muscle tension dysphonia soon after they began using discrete computerized speech recognition software. The diagnosis of dysphonia was based on laryngovideostroboscopy, acoustic analyses, and voice load testing. All patients had normal voice when using everyday speech, but speaking into the computer resulted in the rapid onset of aperiodicity, strain, and a decrease in fundamental frequency. In three of the five patients, laryngovideostroboscopy showed posterior glottic overapproximation, but no other abnormalities. Treatment was centered on voice therapy and avoidance of long periods of using computerized speech recognition systems. The condition of three of the five patients improved with therapy. We conclude that computer speech recognition programs can lead to the onset of muscle tension dysphonia in some patients. These patients can be successfully treated with voice therapy.

Radiographic comparison of three methods for nasal saline irrigation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare intranasal distribution of saline solution delivered by three popular methods for nasal saline irrigation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, controlled comparison. METHODS: Eight healthy adult volunteers received nasal irrigation with 40 mL of isotonic, nonionic contrast material immediately before having coronal computed tomography to visualize distribution of solution in the paranasal sinuses. For each study subject, three methods of irrigation were used: irrigation using positive-pressure irrigation, irrigation using negative-pressure irrigation, and irrigation using a nebulizer. For each subject, three-dimensional computer reconstructions of the irrigated paranasal sinus airspaces were used to compare contrast solution volume and distribution achieved by the three methods. RESULTS: Of the three methods used, two methods, positive-pressure and negative-pressure irrigation, distributed contrast solution widely to ethmoid and maxillary sinuses, but distribution of contrast solution was more uniform using positive-pressure irrigation than using negative-pressure irrigation. The nebulization method distributed contrast solution poorly and resulted in a significantly lower volume of retained contrast solution (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Judged solely on the basis of solution distribution in the nasal sinuses, nasal irrigation is effective when either positive-pressure or negative-pressure irrigation is used but is ineffective when a nebulizer is used.