Success and Predictability of Provox Prosthesis Voice Rehabilitation

Abstract

Because of its safety and simplicity, tracheoesophageal puncture has become a state of the art method for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. The short-term superiority of voice prosthesis in voice rehabilitation over esophageal speech rehabilitation must be seen in light of comparable long-term success rates of the 2 methods.

Postlaryngectomy Vocal Rehabilitation: Assessment Using a Validated Questionnaire in 51 Patients

“…This is similar to previous reports in the literature depending on the rating scale used, the extent of surgery and the patient-related comorbidities [10][11][12] . The low tone of speech was a consistent source of discontent amongst valve users [4] .…”

Prospective clinical phase II study of two new indwelling voice prostheses (Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr) and a novel anterograde insertion device (Provox Smart Inserter)

“…Device‐life assessment has received quite a bit of attention over the last two decades of indwelling voice prosthesis research, but ever since the discovery that biofilm formation with its most visible end result, the growth of Candida species,9 it is obvious that silicone rubber voice prostheses remain limited in their functional survival. Worldwide there are considerable differences in device life published, with the shortest ones in Western Europe (median, 3 months; mean, 5–6 months), and the longest in Mediterranean countries and India, with the United States in between (mean, 9–12 months) 6, 10–15. Most likely, these differences are caused by differences in biofilm buildup, which have been hypothesized to have a relation with differences in diet in these areas 16, 17.…”

Evidence-Based Recommendations in Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation

“… Quicker familiarization with the prosthesis, phonation, and care compared to secondary TEP [ 73 ]. The results on the Harrison–Robillard-Schultz Tracheoesophageal Rating Scale do not differ between primary and secondary TEP, with scores of >11 in both cases [ 84 , 85 ] (4, C). Primary TEP is associated with an earlier return to work for active workers [ 86 ] (4, C).…”

“…The results on the Harrison–Robillard-Schultz Tracheoesophageal Rating Scale do not differ between primary and secondary TEP, with scores of >11 in both cases [ 84 , 85 ] (4, C).…”