Multi-institutional Assessment of the Provox 2 Voice Prosthesis

Annemieke H. Ackerstaff, Frans J. M. Hilgers, Cees A. Meeuwis, Lilly‐Ann van der Velden, Frank J. A. van den Hoogen, Henri A. M. Marres, Gerard Vreeburg, Johannes J. Manni

Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 1999 · 77 citations · 18 references

Concepts

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To verify the initial results of a new anterograde replacement method of the second-generation indwelling Provox voice prosthesis, Provox 2 (Atos Medical AB, Hörby, Sweden), and to determine its device life. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, multi-institutional, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Four academic hospitals and/or comprehensive cancer centers in The Netherlands. PATIENTS: Two hundred thirty-nine consecutive patients who had undergone laryngectomy and were visiting the outpatient clinic for replacement of their voice prosthesis. INTERVENTION: Anterograde replacement of the Provox 2 voice prosthesis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evaluation of ease of use by the medical professional and appreciation by the patients, by means of structured questionnaires; comparison of device life between the original Provox and the new Provox 2 voice prosthesis in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Voice prostheses replaced were Provox (n = 188), Groningen (Medin, Groningen, The Netherlands) (n = 47), and Nijdam (Medin) (n = 4). Anterograde replacement of Provox 2 was always possible. The new anterograde method was preferred by the medical professionals in 97.1% of cases and by 93.7% of the patients, who reported significantly reduced discomfort (P<.001). There was no significant difference in device life between Provox and Provox 2 (median, 125.5 and 104 days, respectively). In 57.5% of patients, the Provox 2 device life was shorter and in 42.5% it was longer (sign test, P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the initial study concerning ease of use for the medical professionals and decreased discomfort for the patients of the new anterograde replacement procedure of the Provox 2 prosthesis were confirmed. The device life of Provox and that of Provox 2 were comparable, despite the alterations needed to optimize the Provox 2 prosthesis for the anterograde procedure.

References

18