Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pawar PV, Sayed SI, Kazi R, Jagade MV (2008) Current status and future prospects in prosthetic voice rehabilitation following laryngectomy. J Cancer Res Ther 4(4):186–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. El Sistema Provox [Internet]. Atos Medical [cited February, 2018]. https://www.atosmedical.es/other-areas-2/protesis-de-titanio-para-el-oido-medio/vivir-con-una-laringectomia/el-sistema-provox/

  3. Blom-Singer Voice Prosthesis [Internet]. [cited February, 2018]. https://www.atosmedical.es/other-areas-2/protesis-de-titanio-para-el-oido-medio/vivir-con-una-: http://www.inhealth.com/category_s/44.htm

  4. Nijdam HF, Annyas AA, Laan KT van der, Schutte HK (1986) The Groningen voice prosthesis for voice rehabilitation during total laryngectomy. Speech restoration via voice prostheses. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–25

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Graville DJ, Palmer AD, Andersen PE, Cohen JI (2011) Determining the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the activalve: results of a long-term prospective trial. Laryngoscope 121(4):769–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schuldt T, Ovari A, Dommerich S (2013) The costs for different voice prostheses depending on the lifetime. Laryngorhinootologie 92(6):389–393

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lorenz KJ (2015) The development and treatment of periprosthetic leakage after prosthetic voice restoration. A literature review and personal experience part I: the development of periprosthetic leakage. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(3):641–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. González Poggioli N, Herranz González-Botas J, Vázquez Barro JC, Novoa Juiz V, Martínez Vidal J (2007) Fístulas fonatorias hoy. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 58(3):110–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Thylur DS, Villegas BC, Fisher LM, Sinha UK, Kokot N (2016) Device life of two generations of provox voice prostheses. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 125(6):501–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hancock KL, Lawson NR, Ward EC (2013) Device life of the Provox Vega voice prosthesis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(4):1447–1453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fusconi M, Taddei AR, Gallo A, Conte M, De Virgilio A, Greco A et al (2014) Degradation of silicone rubber causes Provox 2 voice prosthesis malfunctioning. J Voice 28(2):250–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Messing BP, Kim M, Hirata R, Thompson CB, Gebhart S, Sugar EA et al (2015) Evaluation of prophylaxis treatment of Candida in alaryngeal patients with tracheoesophageal voice prostheses. Laryngoscope 125(5):1118–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lorenz KJ, Grieser L, Ehrhart T, Maier H (2010) Role of reflux in tracheoesophageal fistula problems after laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119(11):719–728

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hutcheson KA, Lewin JS, Sturgis EM, Risser J (2012) Multivariable analysis of risk factors for enlargement of the tracheoesophageal puncture after total laryngectomy. Head Neck 34(4):557–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Summers L (2017) Social and quality of life impact using a voice prosthesis after laryngectomy [Miscellaneous Article]. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 25(3):188–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hilgers FJM, Ackerstaff AH, Jacobi I, Balm AJM, Tan IB, van den Brekel MWM (2010) Prospective clinical phase II study of two new indwelling voice prostheses (Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr) and a novel anterograde insertion device (Provox Smart Inserter). Laryngoscope 120(6):1135–1143

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ward EC, Hancock K, Lawson N, van As-Brooks CJ (2011) Perceptual characteristics of tracheoesophageal speech production using the new indwelling Provox Vega voice prosthesis: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Head Neck 33(1):13–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Serra A, Spinato G, Spinato R, Conti A, Licciardello L, Di Luca M et al (2017) Multicenter prospective crossover study on new prosthetic opportunities in post-laryngectomy voice rehabilitation. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 31(3):803–809

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lorenz KJ, Maier H (2010) Voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Initial clinical experience with the Provox-Vega® voice prosthesis and the SmartInserter® system. HNO 58(12):1174–1183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding and none of the authors have received any financial compensation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), Xubias de Arriba, 84, 15006, A Coruña, Spain

    Miguel Mayo-Yáñez, Irma Cabo-Varela, Alejandro Martínez-Morán & Jesús Herranz González-Botas

  2. Speech Therapy, School of Educational Sciences, Universidade da Coruña (UDC), 15010, A Coruña, Spain

    Loredana Dovalo-Carballo

  3. Otorhinolaryngology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario Santiago de Compostela (CHUS), 15706, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Christian Calvo-Henríquez

  4. School of Medicine, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (USC), 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Jesús Herranz González-Botas

Authors
  1. Miguel Mayo-Yáñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irma Cabo-Varela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Loredana Dovalo-Carballo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christian Calvo-Henríquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alejandro Martínez-Morán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jesús Herranz González-Botas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Mayo-Yáñez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There was no conflict of interest with the manufacturer of the prostheses.

Human participants

This research involved human participants and was approved by the Hospital’s Ethics Committee.

Informed consent

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mayo-Yáñez, M., Cabo-Varela, I., Dovalo-Carballo, L. et al. Provox 2® and Provox Vega® device life-time: a case-crossover study with multivariate analysis of possible influential factors and duration. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275, 1827–1830 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5008-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5008-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation