A comparison of survival lifetime of the Provox® and the Provox®2 voice prosthesis

Lequeux, Thomas; Badreldin, Akmal M.A.; Saussez, Sven; Thill, Marie Paule; Oujjan, L.; Chantrain, Gilbert

doi:10.1258/002221503322542881

Cited by 18 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The average device life for Provox2 devices was compared to the literature quite low (mean 88 days versus 111–163 days in four comparable studies) [12, 13, 25, 26]. However, another German retrospective study conducted from 1993 to 1999 analysed the device life for amongst others Provox2, where the 96 days on average was nearly equal compared to our observation [24].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses

Kress

Schafer

Schwerdtfeger

et al. 2013

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to compare device life of more recent indwelling voice prostheses Provox Vega and Blom-Singer Dual Valve to device life of well-known standard devices (Provox 2, Blom-Singer Classic). In a prospective, non-randomised study, device life of Blom-Singer Classic, Blom-Singer Dual Valve, Provox2, Provox Vega and Provox ActiValve voice prostheses was recorded in a group of 102 laryngectomised patients. In total 749 voice prosthesis were included. Average overall life time was 108 days, median 74 days. The prosthesis with the longest dwell time was the Provox ActiValve (median 291 days). Provox Vega had longer device life compared with Provox2 (median 92 days vs 66 days; p = 0.006) and compared with Blom-Singer Classic (median 92 days vs 69 days; p = 0.004). In conclusion, device lifetimes of Provox Vega and ActiValve were better than those of Provox2 and the Blom-Singer Classic. New voice prostheses, with a defined valve opening pressure (Provox Vega, Provox ActiValve, Blom-Singer Dual Valve) had longer lifetimes than prostheses without a defined opening pressure (Blom-Singer Classic and Provox 2).

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses

Kress

Schafer

Schwerdtfeger

et al. 2013

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More figures about prosthesis life are reported by Lequeux et al [15] about 38 prosthesis patients in whom it was recorded a mean device life of 340 days (Provox) among patients with an age under 60 years in comparison to 392 days among patients, with the same prosthesis, aged over 60 years; moreover, it was observed a mean device life of 217 days (Provox II) among patients with an age under 60 years in comparison to 201 days among patients, with the same prosthesis, aged over 60 years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Post laryngectomy speech rehabilitation outcome in elderly patients

Cocuzza

Bonfiglio

Grillo

et al. 2013

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of our work has been to evaluate the different options of tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation in over 70-year-old patients, who had undergone laryngectomy, assessing advantages and drawbacks of this method of vocal recovery. A retrospective study has been carried out. This has included 40 subjects, all aged more than 70 years old, who have been referred to tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation. It has been realized a phonatory fistula between trachea and esophagus with prosthesis positioning by means of a primary puncture in 18 cases and it has been realized a secondary puncture in 22 cases. The results gathered in these patients were compared with data obtained from a group made of 39 patients, less than 70 years of age that therefore represented our control group. In primary tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP), the short-term success was 67 %, while in the 22 cases who underwent secondary TEP, the short-term success was 64 %. After 2 years from TEP, the long-term success was 82.5 %. In the control group, the short-term success was 65 % in primary TEP and 73 % in secondary TEP. After 2 years from TEP, the long-term success was 77 %. The evaluation of the results has shown the absence of a statistically significant difference both as regards complications incidence, during and after surgery (p [ 0.9) and as regards overall success ratio of prosthesis implants between the two groups (p [ 0.7). The possibilities of tracheoesophageal recovery of elderly patients do not show dissimilarities in comparison with the results in younger subjects.

show abstract

“…6 Both studies suggest a lower than previously estimated average of 4 to 6 months duration of VPs in contemporary users prior to TE prosthesis failure. 4,10,11 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Device Life of the Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis Revisited

Lewin

Baumgart

Barrow

et al. 2017

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance-Voice prosthesis (VP) device life is a limiting factor of tracheoesophageal (TE) voice restoration that drives patient satisfaction, health care costs, and overall burden. Historic data suggest that TE VPs have an average device life of generally 3 to 6 months, but these data are typically derived from small samples using only 1 or 2 devices.Objective-To reexamine current device life in a large, contemporary cancer hospital in the United States that uses a wide assortment of VPs. Main Outcomes and Measures-Tracheoesophageal voice-related outcomes were: (1) device life duration to VP removal, and (2) treatment-related and prosthetic-related factors influencing device failure. Primary independent variables included treatment history (extent of surgery and radiation history), VP type (indwelling vs nonindwelling, size, specialty features), and reason for removal (leakage, complication, other). Duration was examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Disease, treatment, and patient-specific factors were analyzed as predictors of duration.Results-Overall, 3648 VPs were placed in the 390 patients (median [range] age, 62 [34-92] years). Indwelling prostheses accounted for more than half (56%) of the devices placed (55%, 20-Fr diameter; 33%, 8-mm length). More than two-thirds (69%) of prostheses were removed because of leakage, while the rest were removed for other reasons. Median device life was 61 days for all prostheses. Indwelling and nonindwelling VPs had median device lives of 70 and 38 days, respectively. There was no significant difference between specialty prostheses compared with standard devices (median duration, 61 vs 70 days, respectively). The Provox ActiValve (Atos HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscript JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01. Conclusions and Relevance-Our data suggest that VP duration demonstrates a lower durability than historically reported. This may reflect the intensification of treatment regimens that complicate TEP management in an era of organ preservation; however, further investigation is needed.

show abstract

A comparison of survival lifetime of the Provox® and the Provox®2 voice prosthesis

Cited by 18 publications

References 15 publications

Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses

Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses

Post laryngectomy speech rehabilitation outcome in elderly patients

Device Life of the Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis Revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About