Experience with secondary voice prostheses implantations at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery at the Olomouc University Hospital in 2016–2021

Česká verzia

Authors: P. Beláková ; M. Brož ; Richard Salzman
Authors place of work: Klinika otorinolaryngologie a chirurgie hlavy a krku LF UP a FN Olomouc
Published in the journal: Otorinolaryngol Foniatr, 72, 2023, No. 1, pp. 15-22.
Category: Original Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccorl202315

Summary

Introduction: Total laryngectomy is one of the treatment options for patients with advanced laryngeal cancer. As a result of this procedure, patients lose their capacity to create natural voice. It is associated with a psychological and social stigma. Currently, implantation of a voice prosthesis is the most modern and preferred option for voice restoration. Voice prostheses are either implanted primarily during total laryngectomy or secondarily after the surgery. At our workplace, we started the secondary implantation of voice prostheses in May 2016. Methodology: The retrospective study aims to evaluate the average interval of voice prosthesis replacements, the frequency, and reasons for replacements in patients with a secondarily implanted voice prosthesis at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery at the Olomouc University Hospital from May 2016 to June 2021. Results: We performed a total of 94 exchanges in the group of 17 patients. The average lifespan of a voice prosthesis in our study is 127 days. The most frequent indication for prosthesis replacement was leakage in 52% of all cases. Conclusion: The lifespan of prostheses in our group is longer than the one reported in the literature. Leakage is the most common indication for prosthesis replacement.

Keywords:

voice prosthesis – total laryngectomy – laryngeal cancer

Zdroje

1. Galli A, Giordano L, Biafora M et al. Voice prosthesis rehabilitation after total laryngectomy: Are satisfaction and quality of life maintained over time? Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2019; 39 (3): 162–168. Doi: 10.14639/0392-100X- 2227.

2. Kaye R, Tang CG, Sinclair CF. The electrolarynx: Voice restoration after total laryngectomy. Med Devices Evid Res 2017; 10: 133–140. Doi: 10.2147/MDER.S133225.

3. Dršata J a kol. Foniatrie – hlas. 1. vyd. Havlíčkův Brod: Tobiáš 2011.

4. Lorenz KJ. The development and treatment of periprosthetic leakage after prosthetic voice restoration: a literature review and personal experience. Part II: conservative and surgical management. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (3): 661–672. Doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-33 93-8.

5. Czermak J. Uber die sprache bei luftdichter Verschliessung des Kehlkopfes. Sitzungsbericbte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 1858; 35 (2): 65–72.

6. Gussenbauer C. Ueber die erste durch Th. Billroth am Menschen ausgeführte Kehlkopf-Exstirpation und die Anwendung eines künstlichen Kehlkopfes. Arch Klin Chir Berlin 1874; 17: 343–356.

7. Bien S, Rinaldo A, Silver CE et al. History of voice rehabilitation following laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 2008; 118 (3): 453––458. Doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31815db 4a2.

7. Singer MI, Blom ED. An endoscopic technique for restoration of voice after laryngectomy. Ann Otol 1980; 89: 529–553. Doi: 10.1177/000 348948008900608.

9. Zenga J, Goldsmith T, Bunting G et al. State of the art: Rehabilitation of speech and swallowing after total laryngectomy. Oral Oncol 2018; 86: 38–47 Doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.08. 023.

10. Lewin JS, Baumgart LM, Barrow MP et al. Device Life of the Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis Revisited. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 143 (1): 65–71. Doi: 10.1001/ jamaoto.2016.2771.

11. Kress P, Schäfer P, Schwerdtfeger FP et al. Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 271 (1): 133–140. Doi: 10.1007/s00405-013-2611-0.

12. 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 2018; 275 (7): 1827–1830. Doi: 10.1007/s00 405-018-5008-2.

13. Delsupehe K, Zink I, Lejaegere M et al. Prospective randomized comparative study of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: Blom-Singer versus Provox. Laryngoscope 1998; 108 (10): 1561–1565. Doi: 10.1097/00005537-1998100 00-00026.

14. LaBruna A, Huo J, Klatsky I et al. Tracheoesophageal puncture in irradiated patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; 104 (4): 279–281. Doi: 10.1177/000348949510400404.

15. Buijssen KJ, van der Laan BF, van der Mei HC et al. Composition and architecture of biofilms on used voice prostheses. Head Neck 2012; 34 (6): 863–871. Doi: 10.1002/hed.21 833.

16. Cocuzza S, Bonfiglio M, Chiaramonte R et al. Gastroesophageal reflux disease and postlaryngectomy tracheoesophageal fistula. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269 (5): 1483–1488. Doi: 10.1007/s00405-012-1938-2.

17. Elving GJ, van Weissenbruch R, Busscher HJ et al. The influence of radiotherapy on the lifetime of silicone rubber voice prostheses in laryngectomized patients. Laryngoscope 2002; 112 (9): 1680–1683. Doi: 10.1097/000 05537-200209000-00028.

18. Boscolo-Rizzo P, Marchiori C, Gava A et al. The impact of radiotherapy and GERD on in situ lifetime of indwelling voice prostheses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 265 (7): 791–796. Doi: 10.1007/s00405-007-0536-1.

19. Op de Coul BM, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ et al. 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 2000; 126 (11): 1320–1328. Doi: 10.1001/archotol.126.11. 1320.

20. Trudeau M, Schuller D, Hall D. The effects of radiation on tracheoesophageal puncture. A retrospective study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989; 115 (9): 1116–1117. Doi: 10.1001/archotol.1989.01860330106 028.

21. Korpová A, Brož M, Salzman R. Dislokace hlasové protézky do prevertebrálního prostoru – vzácná komplikace. Otorinolaryngol Foniatr 2020; 69 (1): 35–39.

22. Ozturk K, Erdur O, Kibar E. Permanent quadriplegia following replacement of voice prosthesis. J Craniofac Surg 2016; 27 (8): 741–743. Doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003083.

23. Chakravarty PD, McMurran, AEL, Banigo A et al. Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laryngol Otol 2018; 132 (1): 14–21. Doi: 10.1017/S0022215117002390.

24. Barauna Neto JC, Dedivitis RA, Aires FT et al. Comparison between Primary and Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture Prosthesis: A Systematic Review. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2017; 79 (4): 222–229. Doi: 10.1159/000477970.

25. Luu K, Chang BA, Valenzuela D et al. Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture for voice rehabilitation in laryngectomy patients: A systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol 2018; 43 (5): 1250–1259. Doi: 10.1111/coa.13 138.