Literature DB >> 35217904

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

Miguel Mayo-Yáñez1,2,3, Carlos Chiesa-Estomba4,5, Jérôme R Lechien4,6,7, Christian Calvo-Henríquez8,4,9, Luigi A Vaira4,10, Irma Cabo-Varela11.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Tracheoesophageal speech is considered the gold standard for rehabilitation following total laryngectomy. The main reason of voice prosthesis failure is the endoprosthesis leakage. Provox ActiValve® incorporates a magnet-based valve system to achieve active closure of the valve to treat these leakages, with the drawback of being significantly more expensive. The aim of the study was to compare the Provox Vega® and Provox ActiValve® duration and costs in patients with replacements increase due to endoprosthetic leakage.
METHODS: Prospective case-crossover study in laryngectomized patients with Provox Vega® and endoprosthesis leakage to whom a Provox ActiValve® was placed. Survival and possible factors that affect voice prosthesis were studied using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox Proportional Hazards Regression. Cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Spanish Public National Health System with incremental cost-effectiveness calculation was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 159 prostheses were evaluated. The most frequent reason for replacement was the endoprosthesis leakage (N = 129; 83.77%) in both models. The mean duration-time of Provox Vega® was 44.77 ± 2.82 days (CI 95%, 39.18-50.35; median 36 days), and 317.34 ± 116.8 days (CI 95% 86.66-548; median 286 days) for the Provox ActiValve® (p < 0.000). For every replacement not made thanks to the Provox ActiValve® there was saving of 133.97€
CONCLUSIONS: The Provox ActiValve® is a cost-effective solution in patients with increased prosthesis replacements due to endoprosthetic leakage, reducing the number of changes and cost compared to Provox Vega®.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Device duration; Endoprosthesis leakage; Laryngectomy; Provox ActiValve; Provox Vega; Tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35217904     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-022-07313-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  16 in total

1.  A new problem-solving indwelling voice prosthesis, eliminating the need for frequent Candida- and "underpressure"-related replacements: Provox ActiValve.

Authors:  Frans J M Hilgers; Annemieke H Ackerstaff; Alfons J M Balm; Michiel W M Van den Brekel; I Bing Tan; Jan-Ove Persson
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.494

2.  Determining the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the ActiValve: results of a long-term prospective trial.

Authors:  Donna J Graville; Andrew D Palmer; Peter E Andersen; James I Cohen
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Provox 2® and Provox Vega® device life-time: a case-crossover study with multivariate analysis of possible influential factors and duration.

Authors:  Miguel Mayo-Yáñez; Irma Cabo-Varela; Loredana Dovalo-Carballo; Christian Calvo-Henríquez; Alejandro Martínez-Morán; Jesús Herranz González-Botas
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Use of double flange voice prosthesis for periprosthetic leakage in laryngectomised patients: A prospective case-crossover study.

Authors:  Miguel Mayo-Yáñez; Irma Cabo-Varela; Jorge Suanzes-Hernández; Christian Calvo-Henríquez; Carlos Chiesa-Estomba; Jesús Herranz González-Botas
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 2.597

5.  Evaluating the effect of different voice prostheses on alaryngeal voice quality.

Authors:  Margaret M Coffey; Neil Tolley; David Howard; Mary Hickson
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 3.325

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

Authors:  Jessica Soolsma; Michiel W van den Brekel; Annemieke H Ackerstaff; Alfons J Balm; Bing Tan; Frans J Hilgers
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Association of Functional Outcomes in Tracheoesophageal Voicing With Intratracheal Pressures and Esophagram Findings.

Authors:  Lisa Evangelista; Tess Andrews; Nogah Nativ-Zeltzer; Yuval Nachalon; Maggie Kuhn; Peter Belafsky
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 8.961

Review 8.  Objective and subjective voice outcomes after total laryngectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Klaske E van Sluis; Lisette van der Molen; Rob J J H van Son; Frans J M Hilgers; Patrick A Bhairosing; Michiel W M van den Brekel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.