Premium
Prospective randomized comparative study of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: Blom‐singer versus provox
Author(s) -
Delsupehe Kathelijne,
Zink Inge,
Lejaegere Maryline,
Delaere Pierre
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1097/00005537-199810000-00026
Subject(s) - voice prosthesis , laryngectomy , medicine , prosthesis , tracheoesophageal fistula , larynx , surgery , audiology , prospective cohort study , esophagus
Objectives: Compare the most commonly used types of tracheoesophageal voice prostheses, Blom Singer and Provox. Study Design: Prospective study of 113 prostheses placed in 52 patients randomly selected to receive Blom‐Singer and Provox. Methods: Postoperative voice was recorded at 1 and 4 months after valve placement. Survival time of the prosthesis and four objective voice parameters were analyzed. Eight judges rated all recordings in a random order for six subjective voice parameters. Subgroup analysis for primary versus secondary placements and type of procedure was performed. In addition, patients were asked for their subjective assessment. Results: Overall, Blom‐Singer and Provox prostheses give very similar voice quality, lifetime, and patient satisfaction. Cleaning management is somewhat better for Provox, but there is a trend toward better overall voice quality for the Blom‐Singer prosthesis. In subgroup analysis secondarily placed prostheses score somewhat better than primary placements, and patients with total laryngectomy have better voices than patients with extended laryngectomy combined with partial pharyngectomy. Conclusions: Given the equal and good results in terms of voice quality, other factors (e.g., costs, surgery‐related factors, maintenance, patient preference) should be taken into account when deciding which type of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis to use. Laryngoscope , 108:1561–1665, 1998