Literature DB >> 18090869

Long-term results of Provox ActiValve, solving the problem of frequent candida- and "underpressure"-related voice prosthesis replacements.

Jessica Soolsma1, Michiel W van den Brekel, Annemieke H Ackerstaff, Alfons J Balm, Bing Tan, Frans J Hilgers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term results of the Provox ActiValve, a prosthesis for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy that was designed to lessen the need for frequent replacements caused by Candida and "underpressure." PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective assessment of device lifetime, indications for replacement, voice quality, and maintenance issues, measured by a structured trial specific questionnaire, in a cohort of 42 laryngectomized patients, experiencing a short Provox2 device lifetime (median, 21 days).
RESULTS: The median device lifetime of Provox ActiValve, replaced for leakage through the device and those still in situ at the date of data collection (N = 32), was 337 days (mean 376 days): a statistically significant 16-fold increase compared to the Provox2 prosthesis (P < .001). In 10 patients, replacement was fistula-related (median after 86 days): esophageal pouch (N = 4), fistula granulation (N = 3), extrusion of the device (N = 2), and periprosthetic leakage (N = 1). Eighty-six percent of the patients used a special lubricant to diminish "stickiness" of the valve. Provox ActiValve was preferred by 90% of the patients who completed the trial-specific questionnaire.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients requiring frequent device-related replacements, Provox ActiValve, also long-term, provides a true solution and thereby is a valuable addition to prosthetic voice rehabilitation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18090869     DOI: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e318159ebde

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  8 in total

1.  Results of vocal rehabilitation using tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy and their predictive factors.

Authors:  Alexandre Bozec; Gilles Poissonnet; Emmanuel Chamorey; François Demard; José Santini; Frédéric Peyrade; Cécile Ortholan; Karen Benezery; Juliette Thariat; Anne Sudaka; Katia Anselme; Brigitte Adrey; Paul Giacchero; Olivier Dassonville
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-11-05       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Microbial colonization of tracheoesophageal voice prostheses (Provox2) following total laryngectomy.

Authors:  Brigita Tićac; Robert Tićac; Tomislav Rukavina; Palmira Gregorović Kesovija; Dijana Pedisić; Boris Maljevac; Radan Starcević
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-04-30       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  [Voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Initial clinical experience with the Provox-Vega® voice prosthesis and the SmartInserter® system].

Authors:  K J Lorenz; H Maier
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  Long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a magnet-based valve voice prosthesis for endoprosthesis leakage treatment.

Authors:  Miguel Mayo-Yáñez; Carlos Chiesa-Estomba; Jérôme R Lechien; Christian Calvo-Henríquez; Luigi A Vaira; Irma Cabo-Varela
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-02-26       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  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

6.  Tracheostomy cannulas and voice prosthesis.

Authors:  Burkhard Kramp; Steffen Dommerich
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-03-10

7.  Postlaryngectomy prosthetic voice rehabilitation outcomes in a consecutive cohort of 232 patients over a 13-year period.

Authors:  Japke F Petersen; Liset Lansaat; Adriana J Timmermans; Vincent van der Noort; Frans J M Hilgers; Michiel W M van den Brekel
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 3.147

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.