Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of durability and replacement of vocal prostheses in total laryngectomy patients at a head and neck surgery referral center

  • Head and Neck
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The use of tracheoesophageal prostheses has become the gold standard in vocal rehabilitation of patients undergoing total laryngectomy. However, this method also has limitations, such as the need for frequent replacement of prostheses due to leakage or other complications. We have designed a study to access the clinical profile of patients using tracheoesophageal prostheses as vocal rehabilitation after total laryngectomy and to determine the average rate of changes, as well as the main causes of prostheses replacement.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed based on patients who underwent rehabilitation with voice prostheses after total laryngectomy between 2008 and 2017.

Results

The sample consisted of 93 patients and 432 vocal prostheses replacement events. The median change of prostheses per patient was 210.25 days, (range 57.33 to 651.50). The most frequent cause of prostheses replacement was leakage through the prostheses, 218 (50.46%). Lower level of education was associated to higher prostheses replacement rate.

Conclusion

The results of this study show that the median of prostheses durability is higher than that presented in the literature, the main cause of replacement was protheses leakage and that low educational level is associated to higher replacement rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Singer MI, Blom ED (1980) An endoscopic technique for restoration of voice after laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 89(6):529–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489480089006088

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tong JY, Pasick LJ, Benito DA, Sataloff RT (2020) Complications associated with tracheoesophageal voice prostheses from 2010 to 2020: a MAUDE study. Am J Otolaryngol. 41(6):102652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tang CG, Sinclair CF (2015) Voice restoration after total laryngectomy. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 48(4):687–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2015.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chakravarty PD, McMurran AEL, Banigo A, Shakeel M, Ah-See KW (2018) Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laryngol Otol 132(1):14–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215117002390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cocuzza S, Maniaci A, Grillo C, Ferlito S, Spinato G, Coco S et al (2020) Voice-related quality of life in post-laryngectomy rehabilitation: tracheoesophageal fistula’s wellness. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(12):4605. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124605

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bunting GW (2004) Voice following laryngeal cancer surgery: troubleshooting common problems after tracheoesophageal voice restoration. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 37(3):597–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otc.2004.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan B, Ahmed S (2018) Systematic literature review of the complications of primary and secondary tracheoesophageal punctures in patients with laryngectomies for voice restoration. Morecambe Bay Med J. 8(1):24–30. https://doi.org/10.48037/mbmj.v8i1.53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lewin JS, Baumgart LM, Barrow MP, Hutcheson KA (2017) Device Life of the tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis revisited. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 143(1):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2016.2771

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Petersen JF, Lansaat L, Timmermans AJ, van der Noort V, Hilgers FJM, van den Brekel MWM (2019) Postlaryngectomy prosthetic voice rehabilitation outcomes in a consecutive cohort of 232 patients over a 13-year period. Head Neck 41(3):623–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25364

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Serra A, Di Mauro P, Spataro D, Maiolino L, Cocuzza S (2015) Post-laryngectomy voice rehabilitation with voice prosthesis: 15 years experience of the ENT Clinic of University of Catania. Retrospective data analysis and literature review. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 35(6):412–19. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100x-680

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cornu AS, Vlantis AC, Elliott H, Gregor RT (2003) Voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy with the Provox voice prosthesis in South Africa. J Laryngol Otol 117(1):56–59. https://doi.org/10.1258/002221503321046658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Deshpande MS (2010) Prosthetic voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Indian J Surg Oncol. 1(2):146–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/2Fs13193-010-0028-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Varghese JJ, Aithal VU, Suresh K, Bellur R, Balakrishnan R (2022) Voice prosthesis experience of Indian laryngectomees: preliminary findings from a tertiary hospital in South India. Clin Epidemiol Global Health. 16:101076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2022.101076

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Scherl C, Kauffels J, Schützenberger A, Döllinger M, Bohr C, Dürr S et al (2020) Secondary tracheoesophageal puncture after laryngectomy increases complications with shunt and voice prosthesis. Laryngoscope 130(12):E865–E873. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hancock KL, Lawson NR, Ward EC (2013) Device life of the provox vega voice prosthesis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 270(4):1447–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/2Fs00405-012-2154-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kress P, Schäfer P, Schwerdtfeger FP, Rösler S (2014) Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(1):133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2611-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Martins de Sousa M, Matos R, Vilarinho H, Santos M, Silveira H (2022) Voice rehabilitation with voice prosthesis: long term results, complications and risk factors. Acta Otorrinolaringologica Española. 73(4):219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otoeng.2021.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Apert V, Carsuzaa F, Tonnerre D, Leclerc J, Lebreton J-P, Delagranda A, Dufour X (2022) Speech restoration with tracheoesophageal prosthesis after total laryngectomy: an observational study of vocal results, complications and quality of life. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 139(2):73–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2021.05.008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Graville D, Gross N, Andersen P, Everts E, Cohen J (1999) The long-term indwelling tracheoesophageal prosthesis for alaryngeal voice rehabilitation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125(3):288–292. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.125.3.288

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lequeux T, Badreldin A, Saussez S, Thill MP, Oujjan L, Chantrain G (2003) A comparison of survival lifetime of the Provox and the Provox 2 voice prosthesis. J Laryngol Otol 117(11):875–878. https://doi.org/10.1258/002221503322542881

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hilgers FJ, Schouwenburg PF (1990) A new low-resistance, self retaining prosthesis (Provox) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 100(11):1202–1207. https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-199011000-00014

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Op de Coul BM, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ, Tan IB, van den Hoogen FJ, van Tinteren H (2000) A decade of postlaryngectomy vocal rehabilitation in 318 patients: a single institution`s experience with consistent application of provox indwelling voice prostheses. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 126(11):1320–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.126.11.1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Terada T, Saeki N, Toh K, Uwa N, Sagawa K, Takayasu S et al (2007) Voice rehabilitation with provox2™ voice prosthesis following total laryngectomy for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Auris Nasus Larynx 34(1):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2006.09.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ahmad I, Kumar BN, Radford K, O’Connell J, Batch AJ (2000) Surgical voice restoration following ablative surgery for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. J Laryngol Otol 114(7):522–525. https://doi.org/10.1258/0022215001906282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Aust MR, McCaffrey TV (1997) Early speech results with the provox prosthesis after laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123(9):966–968. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1997.01900090080011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Yenigun A, Eren SB, Ozkul MH, Tugrul S, Meric A (2015) Factors influencing the longevity and replacement frequency of Provox voice prostheses. Singapore Med J. 56(11):632–6. https://doi.org/10.11622/2Fsmedj.2015173

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Guibu IA, de Moraes JC, Guerra Junior AA, Costa EA, Acurcio FA, Costa KS et al (2017) Características principais dos usuários dos serviços de atenção primária à saúde no Brasil. Rev Saude Publica 51(2):17s

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Silva ZP, Ribeiro MCSA, Barata RB, Almeida MF (2011) Perfil sociodemográfico e padrão de utilização dos serviços de saúde do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), 2003–2008. Cien Saude Colet 16(9):3807–3816. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232011001000016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Krishnamurthy A, Khwajamohiuddin S (2018) Analysis of factors affecting the longevity of voice prosthesis following total laryngectomy with a review of literature. Indian J Surg Oncol 9(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-017-0700-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gitomer SA, Hutcheson KA, Christianson BL, Samuelson MB, Barringer DA, Roberts DB et al (2016) Influence of timing, radiation, and reconstruction on complications and speech outcomes with tracheoesophageal puncture. Head Neck 38(12):1765–1771. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.24529

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Costa CC, Rapoport A, Chagas JF, Oliveira IB, Castro PD, Magna LA (2001) Reabilitação vocal de laringectomizados com prótese traqueoesofágica. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 67(5):707–714. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-72992001000500017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kruschewsky LD, Freitas LC, Nakamura E, Mamede RC, Mello-Filho FV, Rics L (2002) Complicações decorrentes do uso de prótese vocal. Acta Cir Bras 17(3):116–120. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-86502002000900024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Fagan JJ, Lentin R, Oyarzabal MF, Isaacs S, Sellars SL (2002) Tracheoesophageal speech in a developing world community. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128(1):50–53. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.128.1.50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Head and Neck Surgery Department, Amazonia Cancer Hospital, Rodovia BR 364, Km 15, S/N, Área Rural, Porto Velho, Rondônia, Brazil

    Rafael Cardoso Pires & Paulo Sérgio da Silveira Júnior

  2. Head and Neck Surgery Department, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil

    Ricardo Ribeiro Gama, Fernanda Marsico Teixeira, Carlos Roberto Santos & Renato de Castro Capuzzo

Authors
  1. Rafael Cardoso Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricardo Ribeiro Gama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paulo Sérgio da Silveira Júnior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fernanda Marsico Teixeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos Roberto Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Renato de Castro Capuzzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Cardoso Pires.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pires, R.C., Gama, R.R., da Silveira Júnior, P.S. et al. Analysis of durability and replacement of vocal prostheses in total laryngectomy patients at a head and neck surgery referral center. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 281, 351–357 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08180-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08180-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation