Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 24(04): e535-e538
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3402497
Letter to the Editor

Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis Use and Maintenance in Laryngectomees

Itzhak Brook 
1   Department of Pediatrics/Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
,
Joseph F Goodman
2   Department of Otolaryngology, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Tracheoesophageal speech is the most common voicing method used by laryngectomees. This method requires the installation of tracheoesophageal prosthesis (TEP), which requires continuous maintenance to achieve optimal speaking abilities and prevent fluid leakage from the esophagus to the trachea. The present manuscript describes the available types of TEPs, the procedures used to maintain them, the causes for their failure due to fluid leakage, and the methods used for their prevention. Knowledge and understanding of these issues can assist the otolaryngologist in caring for laryngectomees who use tracheoesophageal speech.

Keywords

tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis - tracheoesophageal prosthesis maintenance - laryngectomees - sputum - speech outcomes


Publication History

Received: 27 June 2019

Accepted: 21 November 2019

Article published online:
07 February 2020

© .

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Singer S, Wollbrück D, Dietz A. et al. Speech rehabilitation during the first year after total laryngectomy. Head Neck 2013; 35 (11) 1583-1590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Merwin GE, Goldstein LP, Rothman HB. A comparison of speech using artificial larynx and tracheoesophageal puncture with valve in the same speaker. Laryngoscope 1985; 95 (06) 730-734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sedory SE, Hamlet SL, Connor NP. Comparisons of perceptual and acoustic characteristics of tracheoesophageal and excellent esophageal speech. J Speech Hear Disord 1989; 54 (02) 209-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Saurajen AS, Chee NW, Siow JK, Lim F, Mok PK, Earnest A. Tracheoesophageal puncture outcomes and predictors of success in laryngectomised patients. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2000; 29 (04) 452-456
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lewin JS, Baumgart LM, Barrow MP, Hutcheson KA. Device life of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis revisited. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 143 (01) 65-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Barauna Neto JC, Dedivitis RA, Aires FT, Pfann RZ, Matos LL, Cernea CR. Comparison between Primary and Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture Prosthesis: A Systematic Review. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2017; 79 (04) 222-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Blom ED, Singer MI, Hamaker RC. A prospective study of tracheoesophageal speech. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986; 112 (04) 440-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Leonhard M, Schneider-Stickler B. Voice prostheses, microbial colonization and biofilm formation. Adv Exp Med Biol 2015; 830: 123-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sayed SI, Datta S, Deore N, Kazi RA, Jagade MV. Prevention of voice prosthesis biofilms: current scenario and future trends in prolonging prosthesis lifetime. J Indian Med Assoc 2012; 110 (03) 175-178 , 180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Brook I. The Laryngectomee Guide. ISBN-13: 9781483926940. CreateSpace Publication, Charleston SC. 2013
  • 11 Wells C, Adcock L. Indwelling Voice Prostheses for Adults Following Laryngectomy: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Guidelines. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017 Dec 13. https://www.cadth.ca/indwelling-voice-prostheses-adults-following-laryngectomy-review-clinical-effectiveness-cost
  • 12 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 (03) 661-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pattani KM, Morgan M, Nathan CO. Reflux as a cause of tracheoesophageal puncture failure. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (01) 121-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Namnoum JD. Expander/implant reconstruction with AlloDerm: recent experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124 (02) 387-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Naunheim MR, Remenschneider AK, Scangas GA, Bunting GW, Deschler DG. The Effect of Initial Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis Size on Postoperative Complications and Voice Outcomes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2016; 125 (06) 478-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jiang N, Kearney A, Damrose EJ. Tracheoesophageal fistula length decreases over time. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (07) 1819-1824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Friedlander E, Pinacho Martínez P, Poletti Serafini D, Martín-Oviedo C, Martínez Guirado T, Scola Yurrita B. Practical management of periprosthetic leakage in patients rehabilitated with a Provox® 2 voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2016; 67 (06) 301-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Balm AJ, van den Brekel MW, Tan IB, Hilgers FJ. The indwelling voice prosthesis for speech rehabilitation after total laryngectomy: a safe approach. Otolaryngol Pol 2011; 65 (06) 402-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Messing BP, Kim M, Hirata R. et al. Evaluation of prophylaxis treatment of Candida in alaryngeal patients with tracheoesophageal voice prostheses. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (05) 1118-1123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schwandt LQ, van Weissenbruch R, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Albers FW. Effect of dairy products on the lifetime of Provox2 voice prostheses in vitro and in vivo. Head Neck 2005; 27 (06) 471-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Franko B, Fournier P, Jouve T. et al. Lactobacillus bacteremia: Pathogen or prognostic marker?. Med Mal Infect 2017; 47 (01) 18-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar