Prospective randomized comparative study of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: Blom-singer versus provox

Laryngoscope

Volumn 108, Issue 10, 1998, Pages 1561-1565

  Delsupehe, Kathelijne ^a   Zink, Inge ^a   Lejaegere, Maryline ^a   Delaere, Pierre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; LARYNX DISORDER; LARYNX PROSTHESIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SPEECH REHABILITATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VOICE;

EID: 0031709607     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005537-199810000-00026     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Blom ED, Singer MI. Surgical-prosthetic approaches for postlaryngectomy voice restoration. In: Keith RL, Darly FL, eds. Laryngectomee Rehabilitation. Houston: College-Hill Press; 1979:251-76.
2. Hilgers FJM, Schouwenburg PF. A new low-resistance, self-retaining prosthesis (Provox®) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 1990;100:1202-7.
3. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. edn 2. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988:79-80.
4. Williams SE, Watson JB. Speaking proficiency variations according to method of alaryngeal voicing. Laryngoscope 1987;97:737-9.
5. Pindzola RH, Cain BH. Acceptability ratings of tracheoesophageal speech. Laryngoscope 1988;98:394-7.
6. Debruyne F, Delaere P, Wouters J, et al. Acoustic analysis of tracheo-oesophageal versus oesophageal speech. J Laryngol Otol 1994;108:325-8.
7. Casiano RR, Lundy DS. Voice and speech rehabilitation following laryngectomy. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996;4:94-7.
8. Tardy-Mitzell MA, Andrews ML, Bowman SA. Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech. Arch Otolaryngol 1985;111:213-5.
9. Clements KS, Rassekh CH, Seikaly H, et al. Communication after laryngectomy: an assessment of patient satisfaction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;123:493-6.
10. Aust MR, McCaffrey TV. Early speech results with the Provox prosthesis after laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;123:966-8.
11. O'Leary IK, Heaton JM, Clegg RT, et al. Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech using the Groningen valve. Folia Phoniatr Logop 1994;46:180-7.
12. Callanan V, Gurr P, Baldwin D, et al. Provox valve use for post-laryngectomy voice rehabilitation. J Laryngol Otol 1995;109:1068-71.
13. De Carpentier JP, Ryder WDJ, Saeed SR, et al. Survival times of Provox valves. J Laryngol Otol 1996;110:37-42.
14. Clayman GL, Weber RS, Guillamondegui O, et al. Laryngeal preservation for advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995;121: 219-23.
15. Delaere PR, Vander Poorten V, Goeleven A, et al. Tracheal autotransplantation: a reliable reconstructive technique for extended hemilaryngectomy defects. Laryngoscope 1998; 108:929-34.