A Questionnaire to Assess Phonation and Problems in Daily Living for Provox® Voice Prosthesis Users in Japan

  • Yukinobu IshikawaEmail author
  • Yukiko Yanagi
  • Michi Suzuki
  • Ujimoto Konomi
Original Article


The aim of this study was to investigate the problems in daily life of Provox® users in Japan with the use of a questionnaire survey and to consider future guidance methods for these patients. We mailed questionnaires to 190 members of a Japanese laryngectomized patient group. We received 118 questionnaires with valid responses. The total voice handicap index (VHI) score was 44.1. Patients were allocated to two groups based on the type of surgery they underwent—laryngectomy or jejunum reconstruction. The VHI score was significantly lower in the simple laryngectomy group than that in the free jejunum reconstruction group (p < 0.01). Only 55.9% of the patients reported having received voice rehabilitation therapy. For other problems of daily life, many patients answered “bad/very bad” for the “smelling,” “eating/drinking hot foodstuffs,” “blowing nose,” and “quantity of sputum” categories. Based on our results, there is a requirement for an effective rehabilitation therapy and appropriate guidance for patients with the Provox® voice prosthesis.


Laryngectomy Voice prosthesis Questionnaires and surveys Phonation 



This study would not have been achieved without the cooperation of all the members of YOUSAY-KAI. We sincerely appreciate their contributions.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by YI, YY, MS, and UK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by YI and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


This study was funded by a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI; Grant No. 16K20770).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (ethics review committee of the International University of Health and Welfare, Japan]) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Ahmad I, Kumar BN, Radford K, O’Connell J, Batch AJG (2000) Surgical voice restoration following ablative surgery for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. J Laryngol Otol 114:522–525. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hilgers FJ, Schouwenburg PF (1990) A new low-resistance, self-retaining prosthesis (Provox ™) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 100:1202–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Coul BO, 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 126:1320–1328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, Tan IB, Aaronson NK, Persson JO (1997) Development and clinical evaluation of a second-generation voice prosthesis (Provox® 2), designed for anterograde and retrograde insertion. Acta Otolaryngol 117:889–896. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nasu T, Koike S, Noda D, One Y, Aoyagi M (2009) Long-term progress and complications of voice rehabilitation using voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy. J Jpn Broncho-esophagol Soc 60:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tateda M, Kuwashima X, Yokoyama T, Sato H (2010) Management of voice rehabilitation using voice prosthesis. Jpn Soc Logop Phoniatr 51:266–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fukushima H (2015) Provox voice prosthesis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 87:73–79Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shiromoto O, Oridate N, Ikui Y, Taguchi A, Mizoguchi K (2014) Reliability and validity of the Japan Society of Logopedics and Phoniatrics version of VHI and VHI-10-A multi-center study. Jpn J Logop Phoniatr 55:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuster M, Lohscheller J, Hoppe U, Kummer P, Eysholdt U, Rosanowski F (2004) Voice handicap of laryngectomees with tracheoesophageal speech. Folia Phoniatr Logop 56:62–67. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazi R, De Cordova J, Singh A, Venkitaraman R, Nutting CM, Clarke P, Rhys-Evans P, Harrington KJ (2007) Voice-related quality of life in laryngectomees: assessment using the VHI and V-RQOL symptom scales. J Voice 21:728–734. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schindler A, Mozzanica F, Ginocchio D, Invernizzi A, Peri A, Ottaviani F (2012) Voice-related quality of life in patients after total and partial laryngectomy. Auris Nasus Larynx 39:77–83. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunt RB (1964) Rehabilitation of the laryngectomee. Laryngoscope 74:382–395. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kobayasi N (1998) Training of esophageal speech. Jpn J Logop Phoniatr 39:456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kawabata K, Kamata S, Takahashi H, Nakamizo M, Inoue A, Nigauri T et al (1991) Hypopharyngeal cervical esophagus reconstruction with free jejunum. Jpn J Head Neck Cancer 17:122–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sakurai H, Nozaki M, Sasaki K (2002) Vocal rehabilitation for cervical esophageal cancer. Surg Ther 87:338–343Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanda T, Tanuma A, Onitsuka T, Nakagawa M, Ando M, Tsuji T (2008) The difference of the training process of esophageal speech by the operation method: the comparison between total laryngectomy and total pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy. Jpn J Speech Lang Hear Res 5:152–159Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benazzo M, Bertino G, Lanza L, Occhini A, Mira E (2001) Voice restoration after circumferential pharyngolaryngectomy with free jejunum repair. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:173–176. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mumovic G, Hocevar-Boltezar I (2014) Olfaction and gustation abilities after a total laryngectomy. Radiol Oncol 48:301–306. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sakaguchi A, Kawamoto R, Sakaguchi H, Nakajima N (1992) The olfactory function of laryngectomized patients. Bull Sch Allied Med Sci Nagasaki Univ 5:173–176Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hilgers FJ, van Dam FS, Keyzers S, Koster MN, van As CJ, Muller MJ (2000) Rehabilitation of olfaction after laryngectomy by means of a nasal airflow-inducing maneuver: the polite yawning technique. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126:726–732. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hilgers FJ, Jansen HA, van As CJ, Polak MF, Muller MJ, van Dam FS (2002) Long-term results of olfaction rehabilitation using the nasal airflow-inducing (polite yawning) maneuver after total laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128:648–654. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Risberg-Berlin B, Ylitalo R, Finizia C (2006) Screening and rehabilitation of olfaction after total laryngectomy in Swedish patients: results from an intervention study using the nasal airflow-inducing maneuver. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:301–306. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Risberg-Berlin B, Möller RY, Finizia C (2007) Effectiveness of olfactory rehabilitation with the nasal airflow-inducing maneuver after total laryngectomy: one-year follow-up study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:650–654. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ishikawa Y, Yanagi Y, Suzuki M, Konomi U (2018) A questionnaire to assess olfactory rehabilitation for laryngectomized patients (Provox voice prosthesis users) in Japan. Auris Nasus Larynx 45:1080–1085. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scheenstra RJ, Muller SH, Vincent A, Ackerstaff AH, Jacobi I, Hilgers FJ (2011) A new heat and moisture exchanger for laryngectomized patients: endotracheal temperature and humidity. Respir Care 56:604–611. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van den Boer C, Vas Nunes JH, Muller SH, van der Noort V, van den Brekel MW, Hilgers FJ (2014) Water uptake performance of hygroscopic heat and moisture exchangers after 24-hour tracheostoma application. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 150:999–1004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ackerstaff AH, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ, Aaronson NK, van Zandwuk N (1993) Improvements in respiratory and psychosocial functioning following total laryngectomy by the use of a heat and moisture exchanger. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 102:878–883. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Minami K, Miyazaki T, Haji T (2013) Candida vegetations of silicone voice prostheses in laryngeromized patient. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 85:899–902. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences at OokawaInternational University of Health and WelfareOokawaJapan
  2. 2.Voice and Dizziness ClinicFutakotamagawa otolaryngologyTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences at NaritaInternational University of Health and WelfareNaritaJapan

Personalised recommendations