Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 4/2013

Open Access 01-03-2013 | Head and Neck

Device life of the Provox Vega voice prosthesis

Authors: Kelli L. Hancock, Nadine R. Lawson, Elizabeth C. Ward

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 4/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Device life of the Provox Vega Indwelling voice prosthesis is as yet untested outside Europe. The current study examined device life and reasons for replacement within an Australian clinical setting. Twenty-three participants were monitored for device life and reasons for replacement. Main outcome measure was days to failure of initial device. Average device life and reasons for replacement were secondary measures. Initial device life data revealed 67 % had functioning devices at 3 months, 52 % at 6 months and 29 % at 12 months. Average device life was 207 days (median of 222). The majority of devices (97 %) failed due to leakage through the prosthesis. The Provox Vega Indwelling voice prosthesis had favourable device life in this cohort of patients and in comparison to European data. Reasons for replacement were consistent with international literature.
Literature
1.
Ward EC, Koh SK, Frisby J, Hodge R (2003) Differential modes of alaryngeal communication following pharyngolaryngectomy and laryngectomy. Folia Phoniatr Logop 51:39–49CrossRef
2.
Debruyne F, Delaere P, Wouters J, Uwents P (1994) Acoustic analysis of tracheo-oesophageal versus oesophageal speech. J Laryngol Otol 108:325–328PubMedCrossRef
3.
Max L, Steurs W, de Bruyn W (1996) Vocal capacities in esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers. Laryngosope 106:93–96CrossRef
4.
Robbins J, Fisher HB, Blom EC, Singer MI (1984) A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech production. J Speech Hear Disord 49:202–210PubMed
5.
Williams S, Watson J (1987) Speaking proficiency variations according to method of alaryngeal voicing. Laryngoscope 97:737–739PubMed
6.
Bozec A, Poissonnet G, Chamorey E et al (2010) Results of vocal rehabilitation using tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy and their predictive factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:751–758PubMedCrossRef
7.
Makitie AA, Niemensivu R, Juvas A, Aaltonen LM, Back L, Lehtonen H (2003) Postlaryngectomy voice restoration using a voice prosthesis: a single institution’s ten year experience. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112:1007–1010PubMed
8.
Leder SB, Erskine MC (1997) Voice restoration after laryngectomy: experience with the Blom–Singer extended-wear indwelling tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis. Head Neck 19:487–493PubMedCrossRef
9.
Op de Coul BM, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ, Tan IB, van den Hoogen FJ, van Tinteren H (2000) A decade of postlaryngectomy vocal rehabilitation in 318 patients: a single institutions’ experience with consistent application of Provox indwelling voice prosthesis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126:1320–1328PubMed
10.
Laccourreye O, Ménard M, Crevier-Buchman C, Couloigner V, Brasnu D (1997) In situ lifetime, causes for replacement, and complications of the Provox™ voice prosthesis. Laryngoscope 107:527–530PubMedCrossRef
11.
Boscolo-Rizzo P, Marchiori C, Gava A, Da Mosto MC (2008) The impact of radiotherapy and GERD on in situ lifetime of indwelling voice prostheses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 265:791–796PubMedCrossRef
12.
Lequeux T, Badreldin A, Saussez S, Thill MP, Oujjan L, Chantrain G (2003) A comparison of survival lifetime of the Provox® and the Provox®2 voice prosthesis. J Laryngol Otol 117:875–878PubMedCrossRef
13.
Cornu AS, Vlantis AC, Elliot H, Gregor RT (2003) Voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy with the Provox® voice prosthesis in South Africa. J Laryngol Otol 117:56–59PubMedCrossRef
14.
Delsupehe K, Zink I, Lejaegere M, Delaere P (1998) Prospective randomized comparative study of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: Blom–Singer versus Provox. Laryngoscope 108:1561–1565PubMedCrossRef
15.
Hilgers FJ, Schouwenburg PF (1990) A new low-resistance, self-retaining prosthesis (Provox™) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 100:1202–1207PubMedCrossRef
16.
Ackerstaff AH, Hilgers FJ, Meeuwis CA et al (1999) Multi-institutional assessment of the Provox 2 voice prosthesis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:167–173PubMed
17.
Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Jacobi I et al (2010) 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). Laryngoscope 120:1135–1143PubMed
18.
Lorenz KJ, Maier H (2010) Voice rehabiliation after laryngectomy. Initial clinical experience with the Provox Vega voice prosthesis and the SmartInserter system. HNO 58:1174–1183 (in German)PubMedCrossRef
19.
van den Hoogen FJ, Oudes MJ, Hombergen G, Nijdam HF, Manni JJ (1996) The Groningen, Nijdam and Provox Voice Prostheses: a prospective clinical comparison based on 845 replacements. Acta Otolaryngol 116:119–124CrossRef
20.
Free RH, Van der Mei HC, Elving GJ, Van Weissenbruch R, Albers FW, Busscher HJ (2003) Influence of the Provox Flush®, blowing and imitated coughing on voice prosthetic biofilms in vitro. Acta Otolaryngol 123:547–551PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lorenz KJ, Grieser L, Ehrhart T, Maier H (2010) Role of reflux in tracheoesophageal fistula problems after laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119:719–728PubMed
22.
Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ (1993) Long-term results of vocal rehabilitation after total laryngectomy with the low-resistance, indwelling Provox™ voice prosthesis system. Clin Otolaryngol 18:517–523PubMedCrossRef
23.
Ozkul MD, Çukurova I, Uğur Ö et al (2003) Ten-year experience with voice prosthesis. Int Congr Ser 1240:1297–1301CrossRef
24.
Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, Van den Brekel MW, Bing Tan I, Persson JO (2003) A new problem-solving indwelling voice prosthesis, eliminating the need for frequent Candida- and “underpressure”-related replacements: provox ActiValve. Acta Otolaryngologica 123:972–979CrossRef
25.
Leder SB, Acton LM, Kmiecik J, Ganz C, Blom ED (2005) Voice restoration with the advantage tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:681–684PubMedCrossRef
26.
Terada T, Saeki N, Toh K et al (2007) Voice rehabilitation with Provox2™ voice prosthesis following total laryngectomy for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Auris Nasus Larynx 34:65–71PubMedCrossRef
27.
Ward EC, Hancock K, Lawson N, van As-Brooks CJ (2011) Perceptual characteristics of tracheoesophageal speech production using the new indwelling Provox Vega voice prosthesis: a randomized controlled cross-over trial. Head Neck 33:13–19PubMedCrossRef
28.
Hancock K, Ward EC, Lawson N, van As-Brooks CJ (2012) A prospective, randomized comparative study of patient perceptions and preferences of two types of indwelling voice prostheses. Int J Lang Commun Disord. doi:10.​1111/​j.​1460-6984.​2011.​00109.​x
Metadata
Title
Device life of the Provox Vega voice prosthesis
Authors
Kelli L. Hancock
Nadine R. Lawson
Elizabeth C. Ward
Publication date
01-03-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-012-2154-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2013

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 4/2013 Go to the issue

Book Review

Eric M. Genden: reconstruction of the head and neck. A defect-oriented approach, ISBN: 978-1-60406-576-3

Review Article

Cost-minimisation and cost-effectiveness analysis comparing transoral CO2 laser cordectomy, laryngofissure cordectomy and radiotherapy for the treatment of T1–2, N0, M0 glottic carcinoma

Letter to the Editor

A proposal to extend application of laryngeal electromyography (LEMG)-guided vocal fold injection to treatment of unilateral vocal fold paralysis to enhance clinical popularity of LEMG: response to the paper by G.F. Volk et al.

Head and Neck

The temporo-parietal fascial flap in extended transnasal endoscopic procedures: cadaver dissection and personal clinical experience

Miscellaneous

An appraisal of the utility or futility of ENT consultant postal questionnaires

Otology

Oxidative stress in chronic otitis media