Conversion from a non-indwelling to a Provox^®2 indwelling voice prosthesis for speech rehabilitation: comparison of voice quality and patient preference

Abstract

This prospective study assessed the advantages and problems associated with converting a patient using an older generation non-indwelling voice prosthesis to a newer generation indwelling voice prosthesis, in this case the Provox2. The voice characteristics of each patient were measured using the old and then the new voice prosthesis. Technical aspects of the insertion of the indwelling prosthesis were noted. Each patient completed a questionnaire after a period of use with the indwelling prosthesis. Changing the prosthesis was simple and uncomplicated in 15 of 17 patients. Acoustic analysis showed improved parameters with the indwelling prosthesis, but no perceptual difference between the two prostheses. The questionnaire revealed that most patients preferred the indwelling prosthesis. Replacing a non-indwelling with an indwelling prosthesis is technically simple, leading to improvement in voice quality and patient satisfaction. It may be reasonable to offer this choice to patients currently using an older generation non-indwelling voice prosthesis.

Postlaryngectomy Vocal Rehabilitation: Assessment Using a Validated Questionnaire in 51 Patients

“…This is similar to previous reports in the literature depending on the rating scale used, the extent of surgery and the patient-related comorbidities [10][11][12] . The low tone of speech was a consistent source of discontent amongst valve users [4] .…”

“…These leakages were of little issue to the patients presumably because they had been adequately informed and were well aware of how to deal with this problem. The average life expectancy of the valves in this study was consistent with previous studies in the literature [3,[5][6][7][12][13][14] . No correlation was found between leakage and diameter/gauge of the valve which was again consistent with our previous study [4] .…”

A prospective, randomized comparative study of patient perceptions and preferences of two types of indwelling voice prostheses

“…As such, the introduction of the indwelling device has greatly increased the number of patients who can successfully use TES (Graville et al 1999). Patients have also reported a preference for the superior voice quality (Vlantis et al 2003), the reduced care and maintenance (Leder and Erskine 1997, Vlantis et al 2003), and the improved comfort (no need to tape a strap to their neck) (Leder and Erskine 1997) associated with using an indwelling prosthesis.…”

Clinical application of the Provox NiD voice prosthesis: A longitudinal study

“…The Provox NiD voice prosthesis (Atos Medical, Hörby, Sweden) has gained popularity in the United States since it was cleared for marketing by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2005 . Although marketed as a nonindwelling prosthesis, the NiD offers advantages that may make it an attractive often lower‐cost alternative to the indwelling prostheses.…”

“…1 The Provox NiD voice prosthesis (Atos Medical, H€ orby, Sweden) has gained popularity in the United States since it was cleared for marketing by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2005. 2 Although marketed as a nonindwelling prosthesis, the NiD offers advantages that may make it an attractive often lowercost alternative to the indwelling prostheses. Our experience in the past 8 years suggests that this device offers high patient satisfaction, better than expected durability in patients with early leakage, and favorable voice quality.…”