You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 123 No. 9, September 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ORIGINAL ARTICLES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Early Speech Results With the Provox Prosthesis After Laryngectomy

Michelle R. Aust, MD; Thomas V. McCaffrey, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123(9):966-968.


Abstract

Objectives
To assess our initial success using the Provox (Atos Medical AB, Horby, Sweden, and Entermad BV, Woerden, the Netherlands) tracheoesophageal speaking valve as the primary prosthesis to rehabilitate patients after total laryngectomy and to compare our success and complication rates with those previously reported.

Design
A retrospective analysis of all the patients who had a Provox prosthesis placed from November 1994 to November 1995.

Patients and Methods
Medical charts were reviewed for success or failure of the prosthesis as determined by the quality of speech and the utility of the device. In addition, complications, whether the patient had a pharyngeal myotomy and/or radiation, and the reasons and timing for replacement were assessed. Twenty-one patients had a Provox prosthesis placed either primarily at the time of their total laryngectomy (n=8), delayed (n=5), or as a replacement for another type of prosthesis (n=8). Follow-up ranged from 2 to 17 months.

Results
The initial success rate was 84%, and the long-term success rate was 74%. Of note, 3 patients had substantially improved speech and none were worse when changed from another type of prosthesis. The mean interval to prosthesis change was 166 days. Reasons for failure included infection, radiation fibrosis, manual incoordination, cerebrovascular accident, and combination of total laryngectomy and total glossectomy. The most common complication (in 2 patients) was retraction of the prosthesis into the esophagus that was successfully managed by replacement with a longer device.

Conclusion
Our early results confirm the effectiveness, longevity, and safety of the Provox prosthesis for speech rehabilitation following total laryngectomy.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123:966-968



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minn.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Evaluation of the Effects of Primary Myotomy in Total Laryngectomy on the Neoglottis With the Use of Quantitative Videofluoroscopy
Op de Coul et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:1000-1005.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Decade of Postlaryngectomy Vocal Rehabilitation in 318 Patients: A Single Institution's Experience With Consistent Application of Provox Indwelling Voice Prostheses
Op de Coul et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:1320-1328.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1997 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.