Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How do voice restoration methods affect the psychological status of patients after total laryngectomy?

Wie beeinflussen Verfahren zur Stimmrehabilitation den psychologischen Status von Patienten nach totaler Laryngektomie?

  • Originalien
  • Published:
HNO Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study investigated the relationship between psychological well-being and different voice rehabilitation methods in total laryngectomy patients.

Methods

The study enrolled 96 patients who underwent total laryngectomy. The patients were divided into three groups according to the voice rehabilitation method used: esophageal speech (24 patients); a tracheoesophageal fistula and Provox 2 voice prosthesis (57 patients); or an electrolarynx (15 patients). The participants were asked to complete the Turkish version of the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) to assess voice problems. They were also asked to complete the Turkish version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The test scores of the three groups were compared statistically.

Results

Patients who used esophageal speech had a mean VHI-10 score of 10.25 ± 3.22 versus 19.42 ± 5.56 and 17.60 ± 1.92 for the tracheoesophageal fistula and Provox 2 and electrolarynx groups respectively, reflecting better perception of their voice. They also had a PSS score of 11.38 ± 3.92, indicating that they felt less stressed in comparison with the tracheoesophageal fistula and Provox 2 and electrolarynx groups, which scored 18.84 ± 5.50 and 16.20 ± 3.49 respectively. The HADS scores of the groups were not different, indicating that the patients’ anxiety and depression status did not vary.

Conclusion

Patients who used esophageal speech perceived less stress and were less handicapped by their voice.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Untersucht wurde das psychologische Wohlbefinden von Patienten nach totaler Laryngektomie bei unterschiedlichen Verfahren zur Stimmrehabilitation.

Methoden

96 Patienten nach totaler Laryngektomie wurden in drei Gruppen nach dem jeweiligen Verfahren zur Stimmrehabilitation eingeteilt: Ösophagussprache (24), tracheoösophageale Fistel und Provox 2‑Stimmprothese (57); bzw. Elektrolarynx (15). Die Teilnehmer sollten die türkischen Fassungen des Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) zur Bewertung von Sprachproblemen, die Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) und die Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) ausfüllen. Die Testergebnisse der drei Gruppen wurden statistisch verglichen.

Ergebnisse

Patienten mit Ösophagusstimme erzielten im Durchschnitt ein VHI-10-Ergebnis von f 10,25 ± 3,22 gegenüber 19,42 ± 5,56 und 17,60 ± 1,92 bei den Gruppen mit tracheoösophagealer Fistel und Provox 2 bzw. Elektrolarynx, wo die Stimmwahrnehmung besser war. Ihr PSS Wert von 11,38 ± 3,92, deutete darauf hin, dass sie gegenüber den Gruppen mit tracheoösophagealer Fistel und Provox 2 sowie Elektrolarynx, die Werte von 18,84 ± 5,50 bzw. 16,20 ± 3,49 erzielten, weniger Stress empfanden. Die HADS-Werte der Gruppen unterschieden sich nicht, was darauf hindeutet, dass Angst und Depression die Patienten gleichermaßen betrafen.

Schlussfolgerung

Patienten mit Ösophagusstimme waren weniger gestresst und fühlten sich weniger durch ihre Stimme beeinträchtigt als die Patienten der beiden anderen Gruppen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boscolo-Rizzo P, Zanetti F, Carpene S et al (2008) Long-term results with tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: primary versus secondary TEP. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 265(1):73–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Akın İ, Vuralkan E, Günsoy B et al (2013) Oncologic outcomes of surgical treatment in supraglottic larynx cancer. J Med Updates 3:8–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dropkin MJ (1989) Coping with disfigurement and dysfunction after head and neck surgery: A conceptual framework. Semin Oncol Nurs 5:213–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kazi R, Prasad V, Venkitaraman R et al (2006) Questionnaire analysis of the swallowing related outcomes following total laryngectomy. Clin Otolaryngol 31:525–530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Attieh AY, Searl J, Shahaltough NH et al (2008) Voice restoration following total laryngectomy by tracheoesophageal prosthesis: effect on patients’ quality of life and voice handicap in Jordan. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Desphande MS (2010) Prosthetic voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Indian J Surgçoncol 1:146–150

    Google Scholar 

  7. Trentini LCM, Hutz CS, Bandeira DR et al (2009) Correlações entre a EFN – Escala Fatorial de Neuroticismo e o IFP – Inventário Fatorial de Personalidade. Aval Psicol 8(2):209–217

    Google Scholar 

  8. Figueiró MT, Martins LNR, Leite LRC et al (2010) Traços de personalidade de estudantes de Psicologia. Psicólogo Informação 14(14):13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Deary IJ, Wilson JA, Carding PN et al (2010) From dysphonia to dysphoria: Mokken scaling shows a strong, reliable hierarchy of voice symptoms in the voice symptom scale questionnaire. J Psychosom Res 68:67–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mirza N, Ruiz C, Baum ED et al (2003) The prevalence of major psychiatric pathologies in patients with voice disorders. Ear Nose Throat J 82:808–814

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dietrich M, Verdolini Abbott K, Gartner-Schmidt J et al (2008) The fre-quency of perceived stress, anxiety, and depression in patients with com-mon pathologies affecting voice. J Voice 22:472–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Willinger U, Volkl-Kernstock S, Aschauer HN (2005) Marked depression and anxiety in patients with functional dysphonia. Psychiatry Res 134:85–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldman SL, Hargrave J, Hillman RE et al (1996) Stress, anxiety, somatic complaints, and voice use in women with vocal nodules: preliminary findings. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 5:44–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Siupsinskiene N, Razbadauskas A, Dubosas L (2011) Psychological distress in patientswithbenignvoicedisorders. Folia Phoniatr Logop 63:281–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Houtte V, Claeys F, Wuyts F et al (2012) Voice disorders in teachers: occupa-tional risk factors and psychoemotional factors. Logop Phoniatr Vocology 37:107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Keszte J, Danker H, Dietz A et al (2013) Mental disorders and psychosocial support during the first year after total laryngectomy: a prospective cohort study. Clin Otolaryngol 38:494–501

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bussian C, Wollbrück D, Danker H et al (2010) Mental health after laryngectomy and partial laryngectomy: a comparative study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:261–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Danker H, Keszte J, Singer S et al (2011) Alcohol consumption after laryngectomy. Clin Otolaryngol 36:336–344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Torrejano G, Guimares I (2009) Voice quality after supracricoid laryngectomyand total laryngectomy with insertion of voice prosthesis. J Voice 23:240–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Robertson SM, Yeo JC, Dunnet C et al (2012) Voice, swallowing, and quality of life after total laryngectomy: results of the west of Scotland laryngectomy audit. Head Neck 34:59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moukarbel RV, Doyle PC, Yoo JH et al (2011) Voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL) outcomes in laryngectomees. Head Neck 33:31–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kilic¸ MA, Okur A, Yildirim I et al (2008) Reliability and validity of Turkish version of voice handicap index. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 18:139–147

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Örücü MC, Demir A (2009) Psychometric evaluation of perceived stress scale for Turkish university students. Stress Health 25:103–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Aydemir Ö (1997) Validity and reliability of Turkish version of hospital anxiety and depression scale. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 8:4

    Google Scholar 

  25. Singer S, Kuhnt S, Götze H et al (2009) Hospital anxiety and depression scale cutoff scores for cancer patients in acute care. Br J Cancer 100(6):908–912

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Felce D, Perry J (1995) Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Res Dev Disabil 16:51–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cox SR, Doyle PC (2014) The influence of Electrolarynx use on Postlaryngectomy voice-related quality of life. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 150:1005–1009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. da Silva AP, Feliciano T, Freitas SV et al (2015) Quality of life in patients submitted to total laryngectomy. J Voice 29:382–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stam H, Koopman JP, Mathieson CM (1991) The psychosocial impact of a laryngectomy:a comprehensive assessment. J Psychosoc Oncol 9:37–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. de Maddalena H, Pfrang H, Schohe R et al (1991) Speech intelligibility and psychosocial adaptation in various voice rehabilitation methods following laryngectomy. Laryngorhinootologie 70:562–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Okmeydanı Training and Research Hospital ENT Clinic, Darülaceze cad. Şişli/Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey

    Z. Saltürk,  A. Arslanoğlu,  E. Özdemir,  G. Yıldırım,  İ. Aydoğdu,  T. L. Kumral,  G. Berkiten,  Y. Atar &  Y. Uyar

Authors
  1. Z. Saltürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Arslanoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Özdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Yıldırım
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. İ. Aydoğdu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T. L. Kumral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Berkiten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Y. Atar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Y. Uyar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z. Saltürk.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Z. Saltürk, A. Arslanoğlu, E. Özdemir, G. Yıldırım, İ. Aydoğdu, T. L. Kumral, G. Berkiten, Y. Atar, and Y. Uyar state that there are no conflicts of interest.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1975 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Redaktion

P.K. Plinkert, Heidelberg

B. Wollenberg, Lübeck

This study has not been published elsewhere in part or as a whole.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saltürk, Z., Arslanoğlu, A., Özdemir, E. et al. How do voice restoration methods affect the psychological status of patients after total laryngectomy?. HNO 64, 163–168 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-016-0134-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-016-0134-x

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation