Journals / Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 6

Provox 2 use for voice restoration after total laryngectomy

Total larenjektomi sonrası ses restorasyonu için provox 2 kullanımı

Pages
339–343
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Due to several reasons such as success of high speech despite of complications and being easy to fight with these complications, provox voice prosthesis is an effective method to use for voice restoration.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study aims to determine the problems of patients applied provox 2 voice prosthesis for speech rehabilitation with their prosthesis and our treatment modalities to increase the quality of life of these patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and Methods: A total of 210 patients (180 males, 30 females; mean age 58±11.9 years; range 37 to 83 years) who underwent total laryngectomy, applied and changed provox 2 voice prosthesis for voice restoration were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Due to several reasons such as success of high speech despite of complications and being easy to fight with these complications, provox voice prosthesis is an effective method to use for voice restoration.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to determine the problems of patients applied provox 2 voice prosthesis for speech rehabilitation with their prosthesis and our treatment modalities to increase the quality of life of these patients. Patients and Methods: A total of 210 patients (180 males, 30 females; mean age 58±11.9 years; range 37 to 83 years) who underwent total laryngectomy, applied and changed provox 2 voice prosthesis for voice restoration were included in the study. For speech restoration of the patients with a primary (intraoperative) and secondary (postoperative) tracheoesophageal fistula was opened. In the 15th postoperative day, provox 2 voice prosthesis was placed to approximately 0.5 cm inferior and midline fistula line of the tracheostoma. The patients underwent speech exercises. Results: The mean change time of prosthesis was 7.5 months (range 1 to 48 months). Fungal colonization was detected in 141 patients (66%) who had voice prostheses. Granulation tissue developed around the voice prosthesis in 30 patients (14%), three patients (1%) swallowed their voice prosthesis, tracheoesophageal fistula width remained permanently in two patients (1%), and these patients were abandoned to use their voice prosthesis. Mediastinitis occurred in one patient (1%). Conclusion: Due to several reasons such as success of high speech despite of complications and being easy to fight with these complications, provox voice prosthesis is an effective method to use for voice restoration.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada konuşma rehabilitasyonu için provox 2 ses protezi kullandığımız hastaların protezleri ile ilgili karşılaştığı sorunlar ve bu hastaların yaşam kalitesini artırmak için uyguladığımız tedavi yöntemleri belirlendi. Hastalar ve Yöntemler: Total larenjektomi yapılan, ses restorasyonu için provox 2 ses protezi takılıp, değişimi yapılan toplam 210 hasta (180 erkek, 30 kadın; ort. yaş 58±11.9 yıl; dağılım 37-83 yıl) çalışmaya alındı. Hastaların ses restorasyonu için, primer (ameliyat sırası) ve sekonder (ameliyat sonrası) trakeözofageal fistül açıldı. Ameliyat sonrası 15. günde provox 2 ses protezleri, trakeostomanın yaklaşık 0.5 cm inferior ve orta hattaki fistül hattına yerleştirildi. Hastalarla konuşma egzersizleri yapıldı. Bulgular: Protez değişim süresi ortalama 7.5 ay (dağılım 1- 48 ay) idi. Ses protezi takılan hastaların 141inde (%66) mantar kolonizasyonu saptandı. Otuzunda (%14) ses protezi etrafında granülasyon dokusu gelişti, üçü (%1) ses protezini yuttu, ikisinin (%1) trakeoözofageal fistül genişliği kalıcı oldu ve bu hastalar için ses protezi kullanımından vazgeçildi. Bir hastada da (%1) mediastinit gelişti. Sonuç: Komplikasyonlara rağmen yüksek konuşma başarısı ve bu komplikasyonlarla mücadelenin kolay olması gibi nedenlerden dolayı ses restorasyonu için provox ses protezi kullanmak etkili bir yöntemdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇ, C., TUNCEL, Ü., CÖMERT, E. (2014). Provox 2 use for voice restoration after total laryngectomy. Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 6, 339–343. https://ajindex.com/articles/342723

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Schindler JS. Vocal rehabilitation folloving laryngectomy. In: Cummings CW, editor. Cummings Otolaryngology. Head and Neck Surgery. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2005. p. 2420-40
  2. Singer MI, Gress CD. Voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. In: Bailey BJ, Johnson JT, editors. Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 1779-93
  3. Chone CT, Spina AL, Crespo AN, Gripp FM. Speech rehabilitation after total laryngectomy: long-term results with indwelling voice prosthesis Blom-Singer. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2005;71:504-9
  4. Williams SE, Watson JB. Speaking proficiency variationsaccording to method of alaryngeal voicing. Laryngoscope 1987;97:737-9
  5. Schwandt LQ, Tjong-Ayong HJ, van Weissenbruch R, der Mei HC, Albers FW. Differences in aerodynamic characteristics of new and dysfunctional Provox 2 voice prostheses in vivo. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:518-23
  6. Palmer MD, Johnson AP, Elliott TS. Microbial colonization of Blom-Singer prostheses in postlaryngectomy patients. Laryngoscope1993;103:910-4
  7. Arweiler-Harbeck D, Sanders A, Held M, Jerman M, Ehrich H, Jahnke K. Does metal coating improve the durability of silicone rubber voice prosthesis? Acta Otolaryngol 2001;121:643-6
  8. Singer MI. Tracheoesophageal speech; vocal rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 1983;93:1454-64
  9. Gencay S, Koybasioglu A, Belgin E. Audio restoration prosthetic and esophageal speech Kulak Burun Boğaz İhtisas Dergisi 1999;6:73-5
  10. D'Alatri L, Bussu F, Scarano E, Paludetti G, Marchese MR. Objective and subjective assessment of tracheoesophageal prosthesis voice outcome. J Voice 2012;26:607-13
  11. Lukinovic J, Bilic M, Raguz I, Zivkovic T, Kovac- Bilic L, Prgomet D. Overview of 100 patients with voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy experience of single institution Coll Antropol 2012;36 Suppl 2:99-102
  12. Balm AJ, van den Brekel MW, Tan IB, Hilgers FJ. The indwelling voice prosthesis for speech rehabilitation after total laryngectomy: a safe approach. Otolaryngol Pol 2011;65:402-9
  13. Reumueller A, Leonhard M, Mancusi G, Gaechter JN, Bigenzahn W, Schneider-Stickler B. Pharyngolaryngectomy with free jejunal autograft reconstruction and tracheoesophageal voicerestoration: Indications for replacements, microbial colonization, and indwelling times of the Provox 2 voice prostheses. Head Neck 2011;33:1144-53
  14. Chan JY. Practice of Laryngectomy rehabilitation interventions: a perspective from Ho