Liset Lansaat1, Cindy van den Boer1, Sara H Muller2, Vincent van der Noort3, Michiel W M van den Brekel1,4,5, Frans J M Hilgers1,4. 1. Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Physics and Instrumentation, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Biometrics, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Institute of Phonetic Sciences (ACLC), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) improve respiratory function after laryngectomy, but there is virtually no information on the benefit of traditional stoma cloths or other covers. METHODS: Two sequential studies were performed: (1) an ex vivo test was used to compare the humidifying capacity of stoma cloths to other coverings; and (2) a 4-week randomized trial was then performed to assess patient acceptability of cloths both alone and with an HME (N = 18). RESULTS: The humidifying capacity of the coverings tested varied widely. For stoma cloths, a humidifying capacity of 13.7 mg/L was found to decrease to 8.5 mg/L if air-leaks around the cloth occurred. Patients who used HMEs disliked stoma cloths because they interfered with voicing, they became soiled more easily, and were less effective at reducing coughing and mucus production. CONCLUSION: Although less acceptable to patients who use an HME, stoma cloths do provide significant humidifying capacity and should be encouraged when HMEs are unavailable or inappropriate.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) improve respiratory function after laryngectomy, but there is virtually no information on the benefit of traditional stoma cloths or other covers. METHODS: Two sequential studies were performed: (1) an ex vivo test was used to compare the humidifying capacity of stoma cloths to other coverings; and (2) a 4-week randomized trial was then performed to assess patient acceptability of cloths both alone and with an HME (N = 18). RESULTS: The humidifying capacity of the coverings tested varied widely. For stoma cloths, a humidifying capacity of 13.7 mg/L was found to decrease to 8.5 mg/L if air-leaks around the cloth occurred. Patients who used HMEs disliked stoma cloths because they interfered with voicing, they became soiled more easily, and were less effective at reducing coughing and mucus production. CONCLUSION: Although less acceptable to patients who use an HME, stoma cloths do provide significant humidifying capacity and should be encouraged when HMEs are unavailable or inappropriate.
Authors: Barbara Ebersole; Kathleen Moran; Jiangtao Gou; John Ridge; Linda Schiech; Jeffrey C Liu; Miriam Lango Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Chathura B B Ratnayake; Renske Fles; I Bing Tan; Laura W J Baijens; Walmari Pilz; Cees A Meeuwis; Pauline H E Janssen-van Det; Rob van Son; Michiel W M Van den Brekel Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.325