T.E.P. VOCAL REHABILITATION FOLLOWING TOTAL LARYNGECTOMY – PARTICULARITIES AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM TWO ROMANIAN E.N.T. TERTIARY CARE CENTERS

  • Alexandru Nicolaescu “Prof. Dr. Dimitrie Gerota” Emergency Hospital – E.N.T. Compartment, Bucharest, Romania & “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy – Faculty of General Medicine, E.N.T. Section
  • Șerban Vifor Gabriel Berteșteanu “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy – Faculty of General Medicine, E.N.T. Section & “Colțea” Clinical Hospital – E.N.T. Clinic – Bucharest, Romania
  • Raluca Grigore “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy – Faculty of General Medicine, E.N.T. Section & “Colțea” Clinical Hospital – E.N.T. Clinic – Bucharest, Romania
  • Zainea Viorel "Prof Dr Dorin Hociotă” Institute of Phono-Audiology and Functional E.N.T. Surgery, Bucharest, Romania & “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy – Faculty of General Medicine, E.N.T. Department
Keywords: total laryngectomy, T.E.P, vocal rehabilitation, vocal prosthesis

Abstract

Tracheo-esophageal puncture (T.E.P.) with vocal prosthesis placement currently is considered the “gold-standard” of vocal rehabilitation following total laryngectomy. This method is however not without shortcomings, and several studies have reported high complication rates among patients.

During a three-year period, we have followed a number of 26 patients who underwent vocal rehabilitation with T.E.P. and prosthesis placement. 10 patients were implanted during total laryngectomy, while the rest (16) were secondary placements. Mean follow-up time was 2 years and 8 months. In total, 197 prostheses were used during follow-up time, with an average device-life of 149 days, but with significant differences between different types of prostheses.

Subsequent patients’ visits were classified as scheduled or emergency – in relation to device functioning. 17 patients out of the 26 (65%) had at least one emergency (unscheduled) visit to address an issue with the vocal prosthesis. Most unscheduled (emergency) visits were related to device malfunction and leakage through the vocal prosthesis. 5 patients had severe complications that warranted removal of the prosthesis – which meant that over the time period observed, the success rate of this method of vocal rehabilitation was 80 %.

Despite some local financial issues that restrict use of new generation vocal prostheses as well as HME’s and hands-free speaking valves, vocal rehabilitation after total laryngectomy by T.E.P. with vocal prosthesis placement is a safe and effective method, with comparable results to that of existing published literature.

References

[1] P. M. STELL, “The First Laryngectomy for Carcinoma,” Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 293–293, Nov. 1973.
[2] S. Grover et al., “Total laryngectomy versus larynx preservation for T4a larynx cancer: Patterns of care and survival outcomes,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 92, no. 3, 2015.
[3] N. Agrawal and D. Goldenberg, “Primary and Salvage Total Laryngectomy,” Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, vol. 41, no. 4. pp. 771–780, 2008.
[4] E. Babin, D. Beynier, D. le Gall, and M. Hitier, “Psychosocial quality of life in patients after total laryngectomy,” Revue de Laryngologie Otologie Rhinologie, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 29–34, 2009.
[5] C. Gussenbauer, “Ueber die erste durch Th Billroth am Menschen ausgefuhrte Kehlkopf-Exstirpation,” Arch Klin Surg, no. 17, pp. 343–356, 1874.
[6] M. I. Singer and E. D. Blom, “An Endoscopic Technique for Restoration of Voice after Laryngectomy,” Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 529–533, 1980.
[7] K. J. Lorenz, “Rehabilitation after Total Laryngectomy—A Tribute to the Pioneers of Voice Restoration in the Last Two Centuries,” Frontiers in Medicine, vol. 4, no. JUN, Jun. 2017.
[8] P. S. Dayangku Norsuhazenah, M. Mat Baki, M. R. Mohamad Yunus, P. P. Sabir Husin Athar, and S. Abdullah, “Complications following tracheoesophageal puncture: A tertiary hospital experience,” Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore, vol. 39, no. 7. pp. 565–568, 2010.
[9] P. Kress, P. Sch?fer, F. P. Schwerdtfeger, and S. R?sler, “Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses,” European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 271, no. 1, pp. 133–140, Jan. 2014.
[10] J. K. Zuur, S. H. Muller, F. H. C. de Jongh, N. van Zandwijk, and F. J. M. Hilgers, “The physiological rationale of heat and moisture exchangers in post-laryngectomy pulmonary rehabilitation: A review,” European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2006.
Published
2021-07-11
How to Cite
[1]
A. Nicolaescu, Șerban Berteșteanu, R. Grigore, and Z. Viorel, “T.E.P. VOCAL REHABILITATION FOLLOWING TOTAL LARYNGECTOMY – PARTICULARITIES AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS FROM TWO ROMANIAN E.N.T. TERTIARY CARE CENTERS”, JSS, vol. 8, no. 2, Jul. 2021.