OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To assess device life of the new Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr prostheses, to establish whether the optimized airflow characteristics of these devices materialize in better voice characteristics in comparison to Provox2, and to assess the feasibility of voice prosthesis replacement with the new Smart Inserter. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical phase II study. METHODS: Prospective clinical phase II study including two patient cohorts (Provox Vega 22.5 Fr: N = 33; Provox Vega 20 Fr: N = 26). Device-life assessment, subjective data collection with study-specific structured questionnaires, perceptual analysis (Comparative Mean Opinion Score), and objective voice analysis (standard Dutch text, maximum phonation time, and dynamic range). RESULTS: Device life of both prostheses appears comparable to Provox2. Several voice characteristics were better in Vega 22.5, which coincides well with patients' preference. Voicing with Vega 20 appears comparable to Provox2. Use of Smart Inserter showed a short learning curve, and was considered an improvement by the clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The new Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr prostheses have a device life comparable to Provox2, whereas voicing is better than (with the 22.5 Fr version) or comparable (with the 20 Fr version) to Provox2. The Smart Inserter, after a short learning curve, turns out to be a further improvement of the anterograde replacement of these indwelling devices.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To assess device life of the new Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr prostheses, to establish whether the optimized airflow characteristics of these devices materialize in better voice characteristics in comparison to Provox2, and to assess the feasibility of voice prosthesis replacement with the new Smart Inserter. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective clinical phase II study. METHODS: Prospective clinical phase II study including two patient cohorts (Provox Vega 22.5 Fr: N = 33; Provox Vega 20 Fr: N = 26). Device-life assessment, subjective data collection with study-specific structured questionnaires, perceptual analysis (Comparative Mean Opinion Score), and objective voice analysis (standard Dutch text, maximum phonation time, and dynamic range). RESULTS: Device life of both prostheses appears comparable to Provox2. Several voice characteristics were better in Vega 22.5, which coincides well with patients' preference. Voicing with Vega 20 appears comparable to Provox2. Use of Smart Inserter showed a short learning curve, and was considered an improvement by the clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The new Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr prostheses have a device life comparable to Provox2, whereas voicing is better than (with the 22.5 Fr version) or comparable (with the 20 Fr version) to Provox2. The Smart Inserter, after a short learning curve, turns out to be a further improvement of the anterograde replacement of these indwelling devices.
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
Authors: Salvatore Cocuzza; Antonino Maniaci; Calogero Grillo; Salvatore Ferlito; Giacomo Spinato; Salvatore Coco; Federico Merlino; Giovanna Stilo; Giovanni Paolo Santoro; Giannicola Iannella; Claudio Vicini; Ignazio La Mantia Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 3.390