This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

ERIC D. BLOM, PHD; MARK I. SINGER, MD
Indianapolis

Arch Otolaryngol. 1985;111(3):208-209.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—As originators of three of the four prostheses that were the subject of Weinberg and Moon's¹ recent article, we feel obligated to point out at least one important observation the authors failed to make. They correctly identify that the "duckbill" portion of the prosthesis may be pushed inward against the posterior esophageal wall by finger occlusion of the tracheostoma during speech, thus restricting valve opening. This, in fact, was one of the considerations that prompted our development of a circular hinge-type valve, protected within the tip of the prosthesis, that avoids tissue contact.²

What Weinberg and Moon failed to recognize in this and previous reports on prosthesis-airflow resistance is that finger pressure exerted against the tracheostoma may also embed the prosthesis airflow port in tracheal tissue, thus potentially altering (increasing) airflow entrance resistance. Additionally, clinical observations frequently show that the airflow port is commonly the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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