Miguel Mayo-Yáñez1, Irma Cabo-Varela2, Loredana Dovalo-Carballo3, Christian Calvo-Henríquez4, Alejandro Martínez-Morán2, Jesús Herranz González-Botas2,5. 1. Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), Xubias de Arriba, 84, 15006, A Coruña, Spain. miguelmmy@gmail.com. 2. Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), Xubias de Arriba, 84, 15006, A Coruña, Spain. 3. Speech Therapy, School of Educational Sciences, Universidade da Coruña (UDC), 15010, A Coruña, Spain. 4. Otorhinolaryngology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario Santiago de Compostela (CHUS), 15706, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 5. School of Medicine, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC), 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tracheoesophageal speech is considered the gold standard for rehabilitation following total laryngectomy. Current literature is limited and contradictory about the possible causes of device failure. The aim of the study is to compare the device life-time between the Provox 2 and Provox Vega and to examine possible related factors that influence their duration. METHODS: Retrospective case-crossover study in 34 laryngectomized patients who had undergone tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation using indwelling Provox 2 and Provox Vega voice prostheses between 2010 and 2016 in a tertiary care centre. RESULTS: A total of 440 prostheses were evaluated. The most frequent reason for replacement was due to an endoprosthesis leakage (n = 221, 64.2%) in both models. Radiotherapy increases the risk of prosthesis replacement (IRR = 1.88, p = 0.007) as well as bilateral neck dissection (IRR = 1.56, p = 0.017) in Provox 2. Age and unilateral neck dissection do not seem to influence the duration of the prosthesis. Mean life-time of Provox 2 was 106.64 days and 124.19 days for Provox Vega (p = 0.261). Complementary treatment with radiotherapy demonstrated a lower device survival (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Results confirmed the non-significant differences on device life between Provox Vega and Provox 2, as well as the relevant role of radiotherapy treatment in the increase of replacements and diminution of the device duration.
INTRODUCTION:Tracheoesophageal speech is considered the gold standard for rehabilitation following total laryngectomy. Current literature is limited and contradictory about the possible causes of device failure. The aim of the study is to compare the device life-time between the Provox 2 and Provox Vega and to examine possible related factors that influence their duration. METHODS: Retrospective case-crossover study in 34 laryngectomized patients who had undergone tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation using indwelling Provox 2 and Provox Vega voice prostheses between 2010 and 2016 in a tertiary care centre. RESULTS: A total of 440 prostheses were evaluated. The most frequent reason for replacement was due to an endoprosthesis leakage (n = 221, 64.2%) in both models. Radiotherapy increases the risk of prosthesis replacement (IRR = 1.88, p = 0.007) as well as bilateral neck dissection (IRR = 1.56, p = 0.017) in Provox 2. Age and unilateral neck dissection do not seem to influence the duration of the prosthesis. Mean life-time of Provox 2 was 106.64 days and 124.19 days for Provox Vega (p = 0.261). Complementary treatment with radiotherapy demonstrated a lower device survival (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Results confirmed the non-significant differences on device life between Provox Vega and Provox 2, as well as the relevant role of radiotherapy treatment in the increase of replacements and diminution of the device duration.
Authors: David S Thylur; Brenda Capobres Villegas; Laurel M Fisher; Uttam K Sinha; Niels Kokot Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: A Serra; G Spinato; R Spinato; A Conti; L Licciardello; M Di Luca; G Campione; G Tonoli; D Politi; V Castro; A Maniaci; L Maiolino; S Cocuzza Journal: J Biol Regul Homeost Agents Date: 2017 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.711
Authors: Frans J M Hilgers; Annemieke H Ackerstaff; Irene Jacobi; Alfons J M Balm; I Bing Tan; Michiel W M van den Brekel Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.325
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: 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