Surgical rehabilitation of the voice post total laryngectomy

References

• Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. 2019;144(8):1941–1953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saraniti C, Speciale R, Santangelo M, et al. Functional outcomes after supracricoid modified partial laryngectomy. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019;33(6):1903–1907.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol. Med. 1998;28:551–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woisard V. Benoit Lepage Perception of speech disorders: difference between the degree of intelligibility and the degree of severity. Hear Balance Commun J. 2010;2010:171–178.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen JF, Lansaat L, Timmermans AJ, et al. Postlaryngectomy prosthetic voice rehabilitation outcomes in a consecutive cohort of 232 patients over a 13-year period. Head Neck. 2019;41(3):623–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza F, Santos IC, Bergmann A, et al. Quality of life after total laryngectomy: impact of different vocal rehabilitation methods in a Middle income country. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giordano L, Toma S, Teggi R, et al. Satisfaction and quality of life in laryngectomees after voice prosthesis rehabilitation. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2011;63(5):231–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galli A, Giordano L, Biafora M, et al. Voice prosthesis rehabilitation after total laryngectomy: are satisfaction and quality of life maintained over time? Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2019;39(3):162–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schindler A, Ruoppolo G, Barillari U. Communication and its disorders: definition and taxonomy from a phoniatric perspective. Hear Balance Commun J. 2010;2010:163–170.
   Google Scholar
• Sharpe G, Camoes Costa V, Doubé W, et al. Communication changes with laryngectomy and impact on quality of life: a review. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(4):863–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sielska-Badurek E, Rzepakowska A, Sobol M, et al. Adaptation and validation of the voice-related quality of life measure into polish. J Voice. 2016;30:773.e7–773.e12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozolewski E. Surgical rehabilitation of voice and speech following laryngectomy. Otolaryngol Pol. 1972;26(6):653–661.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hancock K, Houghton B, Van As-Brooks CJ, et al. First clinical experience with a new non-indwelling voice prosthesis (Provox NID) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;125(9):981–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Jacobi I, et al. Prospective clinical phase II study of two new indwelling voice prostheses (Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr) and a novel anterograde insertion device (Provox Smart Inserter). Laryngoscope. 2010;120(6):1135–1143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuldt T, Ovari A, Dommerich S. The costs for different voice prostheses depending on the lifetime. Laryngorhinootologie. 2013;92(6):389–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graville D, Gross N, Andersen P, et al. The long-term indwelling tracheoesophageal prosthesis for alaryngeal voice rehabilitation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125(3):288–292.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vlantis AC, Gregor RT, Elliot H, et al. Conversion from a non-indwelling to a Provox2 indwelling voice prosthesis for speech rehabilitation: comparison of voice quality and patient preference. J Laryngol Otol. 2003;117(10):815–820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakravarty PD, McMurran AEL, Banigo A, et al. Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture: systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Laryngol Otol. 2018;132(1):14–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gazia F, Galletti B, Freni F, et al. Use of intralesional cidofovir in the recurrent respiratory papillomatosis: a review of the literature. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020;24(2):956–962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galletti F, Freni F, Gazia F, et al. Vocal cord surgery and pharmacological treatment of a patient with HPV and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. BMJ Case Rep. 2019;12(11):e231117.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lorenz KJ, Grieser L, Ehrhart T, et al. [Laryngectomised patients with voice prostheses: influence of supra-esophageal reflux on voice quality and quality of life]. HNO. 2011;59(2):179–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galletti B, Costanzo D, Gazia F, et al. High-grade chondrosarcoma of the larynx: treatment and management. BMJ Case Rep. 2019;12(9):e230918.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kummer P, Chahoud M, Schuster M, et al. [Prosthetic voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy: failures and complications after previous radiation therapy]. HNO. 2006;54(4):315–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elving GJ, Van Weissenbruch R, Busscher HJ, et al. The influence of radiotherapy on the lifetime of silicone rubber voice prostheses in laryngectomized patients. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(9):1680–1683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talpaert MJ, Balfour A, Stevens S, et al. Candida biofilm formation on voice prostheses. J Med Microbiol. 2015;64(Pt 3):199–208.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bauters TG, Moerman M, Vermeersch H, et al. Colonization of voice prostheses by albicans and non-albicans Candida species. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(4):708–712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grillo C, Saita V, Grillo CM, et al. La Mantia I. Candida colonization of silicone voice prostheses: evaluation of device lifespan in laryngectomized patients. Otorhinolaryngology. 2017;67(3):75–80.
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal SK, Gogia S, Agarwal A, et al. Assessment of voice related quality of life and its correlation with socioeconomic status after total laryngectomy. Ann Palliat Med. 2015;4(4):169–175.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Summers L. Social and quality of life impact using a voice prosthesis after laryngectomy. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;25(3):188–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogikyan N, Sethuraman G. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice. 1999;13(4):557–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ţiple C, Drugan T, Dinescu FV, et al. The impact of vocal rehabilitation on quality of life and voice handicap in patients with total laryngectomy. J Res Med Sci. 2016;21:127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moukarbel RV, Doyle PC, Yoo JH, et al. Voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL) outcomes in laryngectomees. Head Neck. 2011;33(1):31–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin JS, Baumgart LM, Barrow MP, et al. Device life of the tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis revisited. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143(1):65–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar