Top

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2014 | Laryngology

Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses

Authors: P. Kress, P. Schäfer, F. P. Schwerdtfeger, S. Rösler

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 1/2014

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare device life of more recent indwelling voice prostheses Provox Vega and Blom-Singer Dual Valve to device life of well-known standard devices (Provox 2, Blom-Singer Classic). In a prospective, non-randomised study, device life of Blom-Singer Classic, Blom-Singer Dual Valve, Provox2, Provox Vega and Provox ActiValve voice prostheses was recorded in a group of 102 laryngectomised patients. In total 749 voice prosthesis were included. Average overall life time was 108 days, median 74 days. The prosthesis with the longest dwell time was the Provox ActiValve (median 291 days). Provox Vega had longer device life compared with Provox2 (median 92 days vs 66 days; p = 0.006) and compared with Blom-Singer Classic (median 92 days vs 69 days; p = 0.004). In conclusion, device lifetimes of Provox Vega and ActiValve were better than those of Provox2 and the Blom-Singer Classic. New voice prostheses, with a defined valve opening pressure (Provox Vega, Provox ActiValve, Blom-Singer Dual Valve) had longer lifetimes than prostheses without a defined opening pressure (Blom-Singer Classic and Provox 2).

Nijdam HF, Annyas AA, Schutte HK, Leever H (1982) A new prosthesis for voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 237:27–33

Hilgers FJ, Schouwenburg PF (1990) A new low-resistance, self-retaining prosthesis (Provox) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 100:1202–1207PubMedCrossRef

Blom ED (1995) Tracheoesophageal speech. Semin Speech Lang 16:191–204PubMedCrossRef

Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, Tan IB, Aaronson NK, Persson JO (1997) Development and clinical evaluation of a second-generation voice prosthesis (Provox 2), designed for anterograde and retrograde insertion. Acta Otolaryngol 117:889–896PubMedCrossRef

Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, van Rob M, Jacobi I, Balm AJ, Tan IB, van den Brekel MW (2010) Clinical phase I/feasibility study of the next generation indwelling Provox voice prosthesis (Provox Vega). Acta Otolaryngol 130:511–519PubMedCrossRef

Hilgers FJ, Lorenz KJ, Maier H, Meeuwis CA, Kerrebijn JD, Vander VP, Vinck AS, Quer M, van den Brekel MW (2013) Development and (pre-) clinical assessment of a novel surgical tool for primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture with immediate voice prosthesis insertion, the Provox Vega Puncture Set. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:255–262PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

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

Kress P, Schafer P, Schwerdtfeger FP (2006) Clinical use of a voice prosthesis with a flap valve containing silver oxide (Blom-Singer Advantage), biofilm formation, in situ lifetime and indication. Laryngorhinootologie 85:893–896PubMedCrossRef

Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, van den Brekel MW, Bing IT, Persson JO (2003) A new problem-solving indwelling voice prosthesis, eliminating the need for frequent Candida- and “underpressure”-related replacements: Provox ActiValve. Acta Otolaryngol 123:972–979PubMedCrossRef

10.

Kress P, Roesler S, Schäfer P, Schwerdtfeger F (2010) Unterdruckbedingte Ventilöffnung bei Stimmprothesen—Echtzeitmessung des intraluminalen Ösophagusdruckes in vivo

11.

Graville D, Gross N, Andersen P, Everts E, Cohen J (1999) The long-term indwelling tracheoesophageal prosthesis for alaryngeal voice rehabilitation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:288–292PubMedCrossRef

12.

Op de Coul BM, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ, Tan IB, van den Hoogen FJ, van TH (2000) A decade of postlaryngectomy vocal rehabilitation in 318 patients: a single Institution’s experience with consistent application of provox indwelling voice prostheses. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126:1320–1328PubMedCrossRef

13.

Lequeux T, Badreldin A, Saussez S, Thill MP, Oujjan L, Chantrain G (2003) A comparison of survival lifetime of the Provox and the Provox2 voice prosthesis. J Laryngol Otol 117:875–878PubMedCrossRef

14.

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

15.

Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Jacobi I, Balm AJ, Tan IB, van den Brekel MW (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

16.

Lorenz KJ, Maier H (2010) Voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Initial clinical experience with the Provox-Vega(R) voice prosthesis and the SmartInserter(R) system. HNO 58:1174–1183PubMedCrossRef

17.

Soolsma J, van den Brekel MW, Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, Tan B, Hilgers FJ (2008) Long-term results of Provox ActiValve, solving the problem of frequent candida- and “underpressure”-related voice prosthesis replacements. Laryngoscope 118:252–257PubMedCrossRef

18.

Graville DJ, Palmer AD, Andersen PE, Cohen JI (2011) Determining the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the ActiValve: results of a long-term prospective trial. Laryngoscope 121:769–776PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hancock KL, Lawson NR, Ward EC (2013) Device life of the Provox Vega voice prosthesis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(4):1447–1453PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

20.

Trussart C, Lawson G, Remacle M (2003) Voice prostheses: long-term follow-up retrospective study (three- to sixteen-year follow-up of 22 patients). Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 124:299–304

21.

Gonzalez PN, Gonzalez-Botas JH, Vazquez Barro JC, Novoa JV, Martinez VJ (2007) Phonation fistulas today. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 58(3):110–112CrossRef

22.

Ozkul MD, Curukova I, Ugur A (2003) Ten-year experience with voice prosthesis. Int Congr Ser 1240:1297–1301CrossRef

23.

Schafer P, Kress P, Schwerdtfeger F (2010) Provox 2 und Provox Vega Stimmprothesen- gibt es Unterschiede inder Verweildauer?

24.

Schafer P, Klutzke N, Schwerdtfeger FP (2001) Voice restoration with voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy. Assessment of survival time of 378 Provox-1, Provox-2 and Blom-Singer voice prosthesis. Laryngorhinootologie 80:677–681PubMedCrossRef

25.

Bozec A, Poissonnet G, Chamorey E, Demard F, Santini J, Peyrade F, Ortholan C, Benezery K, Thariat J, Sudaka A, Anselme K, Adrey B, Giacchero P, Dassonville O (2010) Results of vocal rehabilitation using tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy and their predictive factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:751–758PubMedCrossRef

26.

Ackerstaff AH, Hilgers FJ, Meeuwis CA, van der Velden LA, van den Hoogen FJ, Marres HA, Vreeburg GC, Manni JJ (1999) Multi-institutional assessment of the Provox 2 voice prosthesis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:167–173PubMedCrossRef

Title: Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses
Authors: P. Kress
P. Schäfer
F. P. Schwerdtfeger
S. Rösler
Publication date: 01-01-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2611-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

End-to-end versus end-to-side venous microanastomoses in head and neck reconstruction

Endoscopic laryngeal patterns in vagus nerve stimulation therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy

Squamous cell carcinoma of the ear arising in patients after radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Drug-induced sleep endoscopy: a two drug comparison and simultaneous polysomnography

The relationship between tinnitus pitch and hearing sensitivity

Identification of nasal bacterial flora profile and carriage rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients with allergic rhinitis