- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Calcagno, Haley"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Eliciting and Characterizing Porcine Vocalizations: When Pigs Fly(Elsevier, 2022-04-30) Zhang, Lujuan; Fujiki, Robert Brinton; Brookes, Sarah; Calcagno, Haley; Awonusi, Oluwaseyi; Kluender, Keith; Berry, Kevin; Venkatraman, Anumitha; Maulden, Amanda; Sivasankar, M. Preeti; Voytik-Harbin, Sherry; Halum, Stacey; Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, School of MedicineBackground/Objectives: While voice-related therapeutic interventions are often researched preclinically in the porcine model, there are no well-established methods to induce porcine glottic phonation. Described approaches such as training animals to phonate for positive reinforcement are time-consuming and plagued by inherent variability in the type of phonation produced and contamination of background noise. Thus, a reliable method of assessing glottic phonation in the porcine model is needed. Methods: In this study, we have created a novel pulley-based apparatus with harness for “pig-lifting” with surrounding acoustic insulation and high-directional microphone with digital recorder for recording phonation. Praat and Matlab were used to analyze all porcine vocalizations for fundamental frequency (F0), intensity, duration of phonation and cepstral peak prominence (CPP). Glottic phonation was detected using F0 (≥ 2000 hz), duration (≥.3 seconds) and researcher perceptual judgment. Partial-glottic phonations were also analyzed. Reliability between researcher judgment and acoustic measures for glottic phonation detection was high. Results: Acoustic analysis demonstrated that glottic and partial-glottic phonation was consistently elicited, with no formal training of the minipigs required. Glottic vocalizations increased with multiple lifts. Glottic phonation continued to be elicited after multiple days but became less frequent. Glottic and partial-glottic phonations had similar CPP values over the 6 experimental days. Conclusion: Our cost-effective, reliable method of inducing and recording glottic phonation in the porcine model may provide a cost effective, preclinical tool in voice research.Item Safety practices for in-office laryngology procedures during clinical reintroduction amidst COVID-19(Wiley, 2021-08) Calcagno, Haley; Anthony, Benjamin P.; Halum, Stacey L.; Parker, Noah P.; Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, School of MedicineObjective Describe safety practices for performing in-office laryngology procedures during clinical re-introduction amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods An anonymous survey in Qualtrics was created to evaluate demographics, preprocedure testing, practice settings, anesthesia, and personal protective equipment (PPE) use for five procedure categories (non-mucosal-traversing injections, mucosal-traversing injections, endoscopy without suction, endoscopy with suction/mucosal intervention via working channel, and laser via working channel). The survey was emailed to the Fall Voice Community on Doc Matter and to members of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association (ABEA) from May to June 2020. Results Eighty-two respondents were analyzed (response rate: 10%). Respondents represented diverse locations, including international. Most reported academic (71%) or private practices (16%), laryngology fellowship training (76%), and a significant practice devotion to laryngology and broncho-esophagology. During the early re-introduction, most continued to perform all procedure categories. The office was preferred to the OR setting for most, though 36% preferred the OR for laser procedures. There was a preference for preprocedural SARS-Cov2 testing for procedures involving a working channel (>67%), and these procedures had the highest proportion of respondents discontinuing the procedure due to COVID-19. Various types of topical anesthesia were reported, including nebulizer treatments. The most common forms of personal protective equipment utilized were gloves (>95%) and N95 masks (>67%). Powered-air purifying respirators and general surgical masks were used infrequently. Conclusions During the early re-introduction, respondents reported generally continuing to perform office laryngology procedures, while greater mucosal manipulation affected decisions to stop procedures due to COVID-19, perform preprocedural SARS-Cov2 testing, and alter topical anesthesia. Gloves and N95 masks were the predominate PPE. Level of Evidence N/A.