Literature DB >> 14670148

A comparison of survival lifetime of the Provox and the Provox2 voice prosthesis.

T Lequeux1, A Badreldin, S Saussez, M P Thill, L Oujjan, G Chantrain.   

Abstract

The Provox (Atos Medical AB, Hörby, Sweden) voice prosthesis was developed between 1988 and 1990 and has been used at our centre with regular success since 1993. Since 1996, a second generation of Provox (Provox2) has been used, which can be inserted by an anterograde technique. The aim of this study is to compare the survival lifetime of both voice prostheses. The survival time of the two voice prostheses were compared retrospectively in 152 devices placed in 38 patients. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to determine the survival lifetimes and a log rank test was performed to compare the two curves. Clinical factors affecting the lifetime were also analysed with a Kaplan-Meier plot. The median survival lifetime of the Provox and Provox2 were 303 and 144 days respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimation shows that this difference is statistically significant (p=0.02). It is considered an early failure if it occurs within the first three months. There was a larger number of early failures with the Provox2 than with the Provox (p=0.04). Neither the gender nor the age affected the lifetime of the devices. Radiotherapy seemed to lengthen the lifetime of the first valve. The survival lifetime of the second generation Provox2 valve is shorter than the lifetime of the first generation Provox. This could be due to the difference in elasticity of these valves that could lead to a different level of colonization and invasion of the valves by micro-organisms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14670148     DOI: 10.1258/002221503322542881

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Laryngol Otol        ISSN: 0022-2151            Impact factor:   1.469


  7 in total

1.  Post laryngectomy speech rehabilitation outcome in elderly patients.

Authors:  Salvatore Cocuzza; Marco Bonfiglio; Calogero Grillo; Luigi Maiolino; Mariano Malaguarnera; Francesco Martines; Agostino Serra
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Tracheo-esophageal Puncture (TEP) for Voice Rehabilitation in Laryngectomised Patients Blom-singer® Vs Provox® Prosthesis : Our Experience.

Authors:  Wvbs Ramalingam; D Chikara; G Rajagopal; A R Mehta; S Sarkar
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

3.  Analysis of Factors Affecting the Longevity of Voice Prosthesis Following Total Laryngectomy with a Review of Literature.

Authors:  Arvind Krishnamurthy; Suhaildeen Khwajamohiuddin
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-09-06

4.  Device Life of the Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis Revisited.

Authors:  Jan S Lewin; Leah M Baumgart; Martha P Barrow; Katherine A Hutcheson
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.223

5.  Molecular Characterization of Fungal Colonization on the Provox™ Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis in Post Laryngectomy Patients.

Authors:  Hasti Kamali Sarvestani; Roshanak Daie Ghazvini; Seyed Jamal Hashemi; Mohsen Gerami Shoar; Saham Ansari; Zahra Rafat; Aslan Ahmadi; Pedram Borghei; Miad Elahi; Abbas Rahimi Foroushani; Muhammad Ibrahim Getso; Shima Aboutalebian; Fatemeh Safari; Pegah Ardi
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 1.429

6.  Device life of the Provox Vega voice prosthesis.

Authors:  Kelli L Hancock; Nadine R Lawson; Elizabeth C Ward
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 2.503

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

Authors:  P Kress; P Schäfer; F P Schwerdtfeger; S Rösler
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 2.503

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.