Efficacy and Safety of Duckbill Valve Voice Prosthesis in Comparison to Provox
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction
Voice rehabilitation is the most important issue after total laryngectomy as source of vibration is removed. Three options are there like esophageal voice, electrolarynx and surgical prosthetic voice. Best is the prosthetic speech as voice is generated by lung powered air column. Provox prosthesis is the standard on and most commonly used. But it is costly for the class of patients presenting to our government hospitals. Duckbill prosthesis is very economical and may be helpful for them. There is very limited number of studies with duckbill prosthesis.
Materials and Methods
Twenty two post-laryngectomy patients was selected for this study. Proper counselling was done regarding cost, pros and cons of Provox and Duckbill prosthesis. Fifteen patient selected Duckbill where as seven patient have chosen Provox prosthasis. Voice analysis was done after one month of speech therapy by perceptual voice analysis protocol. Safety and complications arising from prosthesis were also noted.
Results
There was no significant difference in quality of voice.Both prosthesis are safe if prolong use is avoided.
Conclusion
There is no significant difference in the quality and safety of both the prosthesis, but huge difference in cost is present. More over it is recurrent cost as it should be changed every year or earlier. One Provox costs around rupees fifty thousand whereas a duckbill prosthesis costs rupees one thousand approximately in Indian market.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Damste PH. Disorder of the voice. In: Alan G Kerr editor. Scott-Brown’s Otolaryngology 5,6th edition. Butterworth –Heineman, 1997; 5/6/1 – 5/6/25
Bloom et al. Tracheoesophageal voice restoration following total laryngectomy. London and San Diego: Singular Publishing, 1998:1-8
Alison Perry. Speech therapy in ENT practice: scope, science and evidence for intervention. In: Michael Gleeson, editor. Scott-Brown’s Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 7th edition; 2227
RehanKazi et al. Voice restoration. In: John c Watkinson, Ralph W Gilbert, editors. Stell & Maran’s Textbook of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, 5th edition; 649-650
Omori K et al. Acoustic characteristics of rough voice: Subharmonics. Journal of voice. 1997;11:40-7
Takahasi H et al. Some perceptual dimension and acoustical correlates of pathological voices. Acta Otolarygologica, 1976;338:1-24
Saurabh Bobdey et al. Indian J Med Paediatroncol. 2015 jul-Sep; 36(3): 154-160
Three-year report on population based cancer registries 2009-2011. Bangalore: National cancer registry programme (ICMR); 2013.ICMR. Individual registry wise annexure; pp 92-150
Birches et al. Tumours of the larynx. In: Michael Gleeson, editors. Scott-Brown’s Otolaryngology , Head and Neck Surgery 7th edition; 2598-2619
Consolidated Reports on Hospital Based Cancer Registries 2007 -2011.Bangalore: National cancer registry programme (ICMR); 2013.ICMR. Education and Marital Status, religion and Language Spoken;pp.43-4tatus
Sankaranarayanan R et al: Cancer Survival in Africa, Asia, and Central America: A Population Based Study. Lancet oncol. 2010; 11:165-73. SurvCan
Kenneth Mackenzie and Hisham Mehenna. Larynx. . In: John C Watkinson, Ralph W Gilbert, editors. Stell & Maran’s Textbook of Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology, 5th edition; 649-650
Ramalingam et al. Tracheo-Esophageal Puncture (TEP) for Voice Rehabilitation in Laryngectomised Patients, Bloom-Singer Vs Provox Prosthesis: Our Experience. Med J Armed Forces India. 2007 Jan; 63(1):15-18
Delsupehe et al: Prospective randomized comparative study of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: Blom-Singer versus Provox. Laryngoscope 1998 October; 108(10):1561-5.