Is Postoperative Voice Rest Unnecessary? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Voice Rest Recommendation Outcomes.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Doreen Lam, Katherine Xu, Natasha Mirza
{"title":"Is Postoperative Voice Rest Unnecessary? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Voice Rest Recommendation Outcomes.","authors":"Doreen Lam, Katherine Xu, Natasha Mirza","doi":"10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.09.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Voice rest (VR) is widely recommended after microlaryngeal surgery to facilitate recovery and improve voice outcomes. Our study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the impact of postoperative absolute voice rest (AVR) and no voice rest (NVR) instructions on voice outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using \"voice rest laryngeal surgery\" and \"postoperative voice rest\" for articles published before December 2022. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB2 tools. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed for studies comparing Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10) outcomes between NVR and AVR. Analysis was performed in R Studio.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 255 articles were reviewed, 24 underwent full-text screening, and nine met inclusion criteria. Four randomized control trials (RCT) and one retrospective review compared AVR durations (range: 2-10days). Four studies (two cohort, one cross-sectional, and one RCT) compared AVR to NVR. All studies had risk of bias (ROBINS-I: two moderate, two serious; RoB2: five with concerns). Comparing AVR durations, two found no difference between short and long duration, while two reported improved outcomes for the short cohort. In studies comparing AVR to NVR, all concluded no significant difference in outcomes. Pooled analysis of three studies (355 patients) comparing NVR and AVR demonstrated no significant differences in pre- and postoperative VHI-10 change (mean difference=-0.87; 95% CI, -2.51 to 0.77; P = 0.27).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Systematic review findings indicate postoperative VR may not lead to improved voice outcomes, and a meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in VHI-10 outcomes between AVR and NVR.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 2: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":49954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Voice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Voice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.09.013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Voice rest (VR) is widely recommended after microlaryngeal surgery to facilitate recovery and improve voice outcomes. Our study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the impact of postoperative absolute voice rest (AVR) and no voice rest (NVR) instructions on voice outcomes.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using "voice rest laryngeal surgery" and "postoperative voice rest" for articles published before December 2022. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB2 tools. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed for studies comparing Voice Handicap Index (VHI-10) outcomes between NVR and AVR. Analysis was performed in R Studio.

Results: In total, 255 articles were reviewed, 24 underwent full-text screening, and nine met inclusion criteria. Four randomized control trials (RCT) and one retrospective review compared AVR durations (range: 2-10days). Four studies (two cohort, one cross-sectional, and one RCT) compared AVR to NVR. All studies had risk of bias (ROBINS-I: two moderate, two serious; RoB2: five with concerns). Comparing AVR durations, two found no difference between short and long duration, while two reported improved outcomes for the short cohort. In studies comparing AVR to NVR, all concluded no significant difference in outcomes. Pooled analysis of three studies (355 patients) comparing NVR and AVR demonstrated no significant differences in pre- and postoperative VHI-10 change (mean difference=-0.87; 95% CI, -2.51 to 0.77; P = 0.27).

Conclusion: Systematic review findings indicate postoperative VR may not lead to improved voice outcomes, and a meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in VHI-10 outcomes between AVR and NVR.

Level of evidence: 2:

术后嗓音休息是否不必要?嗓音休息建议结果的系统回顾和元分析》。
背景:喉显微手术后普遍建议进行嗓音休息(VR),以促进恢复并改善嗓音效果。我们的研究是第一项系统回顾和荟萃分析,总结了术后绝对静声(AVR)和不静声(NVR)指导对嗓音效果的影响:在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库中使用 "喉部手术禁声 "和 "术后禁声 "检索2022年12月之前发表的文章。使用 ROBINS-I 和 RoB2 工具评估偏倚风险。使用随机效应模型对比较 NVR 和 AVR 的嗓音障碍指数(VHI-10)结果的研究进行了 Meta 分析。分析在 R Studio 中进行:共审查了 255 篇文章,其中 24 篇经过全文筛选,9 篇符合纳入标准。四项随机对照试验(RCT)和一项回顾性研究比较了 AVR 的持续时间(范围:2-10 天)。四项研究(两项队列研究、一项横断面研究和一项 RCT)比较了 AVR 和 NVR。所有研究均存在偏倚风险(ROBINS-I:2 项中度偏倚,2 项严重偏倚;RoB2:5 项存在偏倚风险)。在比较 AVR 持续时间的研究中,有两项研究发现短持续时间和长持续时间之间没有差异,而有两项研究报告称短持续时间组群的预后有所改善。在比较 AVR 和 NVR 的研究中,所有研究都认为结果没有显著差异。对三项比较 NVR 和 AVR 的研究(355 名患者)进行的汇总分析表明,术前和术后 VHI-10 变化无显著差异(平均差异=-0.87;95% CI,-2.51 至 0.77;P = 0.27):系统综述结果表明术后VR可能不会改善嗓音预后,荟萃分析表明AVR和NVR的VHI-10预后无差异:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Voice
Journal of Voice 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.60%
发文量
395
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Voice is widely regarded as the world''s premiere journal for voice medicine and research. This peer-reviewed publication is listed in Index Medicus and is indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information. The journal contains articles written by experts throughout the world on all topics in voice sciences, voice medicine and surgery, and speech-language pathologists'' management of voice-related problems. The journal includes clinical articles, clinical research, and laboratory research. Members of the Foundation receive the journal as a benefit of membership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信