OBJECTIVES: Tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) for postlaryngectomy speech is increasingly being performed as an office-based procedure. We review our experience with office-based TEP and compare outcomes with those of operating room-based TEP. Our hypothesis was that office-based TEP results in improved prosthesis sizing, reducing the number of visits dedicated to prosthesis resizing. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent secondary TEP at our institution from 2001 to 2008. The primary dependent measure was the change in the length of the voice prosthesis. We also evaluated the number of visits made to the speech-language pathologist for resizing before a stable prosthesis length was achieved, and the number of days between voice prosthesis placement and the date a stable prosthesis length was observed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in prosthesis length change between patients who had office-based TEP and patients who had operating room-based TEP (p < 0.001). In addition, the office-based cohort required fewer visits to the speech-language pathologist for TEP adjustments before a stable TEP length was achieved (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Voice prosthesis sizing was better in patients who had office-based TEP than in patients who had operating room-based TEP. This outcome is likely due to the lesser degree of swelling of the tracheoesophageal party wall in the office-based procedure.
OBJECTIVES:Tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) for postlaryngectomy speech is increasingly being performed as an office-based procedure. We review our experience with office-based TEP and compare outcomes with those of operating room-based TEP. Our hypothesis was that office-based TEP results in improved prosthesis sizing, reducing the number of visits dedicated to prosthesis resizing. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent secondary TEP at our institution from 2001 to 2008. The primary dependent measure was the change in the length of the voice prosthesis. We also evaluated the number of visits made to the speech-language pathologist for resizing before a stable prosthesis length was achieved, and the number of days between voice prosthesis placement and the date a stable prosthesis length was observed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included in this study. There was a significant difference in prosthesis length change between patients who had office-based TEP and patients who had operating room-based TEP (p < 0.001). In addition, the office-based cohort required fewer visits to the speech-language pathologist for TEP adjustments before a stable TEP length was achieved (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Voice prosthesis sizing was better in patients who had office-based TEP than in patients who had operating room-based TEP. This outcome is likely due to the lesser degree of swelling of the tracheoesophageal party wall in the office-based procedure.