195
Views
10
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
ONCOLOGY

Clinical phase I/feasibility study of the next generation indwelling Provox voice prosthesis (Provox Vega)

, , , , , & show all
Pages 511-519 | Received 28 Jul 2009, Accepted 16 Aug 2009, Published online: 07 Nov 2009

References

  • Ackerstaff AH, Hilgers FJ, Meeuwis CA, van der Velden LA, van den Hoogen FJ, Marres HA, Multi-institutional assessment of the Provox 2 voice prosthesis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:167–73.
  • Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, Tan IB, Aaronson NK, Persson JO. Development and clinical evaluation of a second-generation voice prosthesis (Provox 2), designed for anterograde and retrograde insertion. Acta Otolaryngol 1997;117:889–96.
  • Op de Coul BM, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ, Tan IB, van den Hoogen FJ, van Tinteren H. A decade of postlaryngectomy vocal rehabilitation in 318 patients: a single Institution's experience with consistent application of Provox indwelling voice prostheses. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:1320–8.
  • Kress P, Schafer P, Schwerdtfeger FP, Roesler S. 2007. Measurement and comparison of in vitro air-flow characteristics of the most frequently used European indwelling voice prostheses types. 6th European Congress of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Head and Neck Surgery, June 30 - July 4, 2007, Vienna, Austria. p HP54.
  • Hilgers FJ, Schouwenburg PF. A new low-resistance, self-retaining prosthesis (Provox) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 1990;100:1202–7.
  • Nijdam HF, Annyas AA, Schutte HK, Leever H. A new prosthesis for voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1982;237:27–33.
  • Singer MI, Blom ED. An endoscopic technique for restoration of voice after laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1980;89:529–33.
  • Blom ED. Some comments on the escalation of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis dimensions. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:500–2.
  • Acton LM, Ross DA, Sasaki CT, Leder SB. Investigation of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis leakage patterns: patient's self-report versus clinician's confirmation. Head Neck 2008;30:618–21.
  • Hilgers FJ, van den Brekel MW, van Tinteren H. Views on Acton, et al's “Investigation of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis leakage patterns: patient's self-report versus clinician's confirmation”. Head Neck 2008;30:1660–1.
  • Lorenz KJ, Ehrhart T, Grieser L, Maier H. [Coincidence of fistula enlargement and supra-oesophageal reflux in patients after laryngectomy and prosthetic voice restoration.]. HNO 2009, epub ahead of print Aug 30.
  • Pattani KM, Morgan M, Nathan CA. Reflux as a cause of tracheoesophageal puncture failure. Laryngoscope 2009;119:121–5.
  • Boscolo-Rizzo P, Marchiori C, Gava A, Da Mosto MC. The impact of radiotherapy and GERD on in situ lifetime of indwelling voice prostheses. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:791–6.
  • Hancock K, Houghton B, As-Brooks CJ, Coman W. First clinical experience with a new non-indwelling voice prosthesis (Provox NID) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:981–90.
  • Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, Van den Brekel MW, Bing Tan I, Persson JO. A new problem-solving indwelling voice prosthesis, eliminating the need for frequent Candida- and “underpressure”-related replacements: Provox ActiValve. Acta Otolaryngol 2003;123:972–9.
  • Soolsma J, Van den Brekel MW, Ackerstaff AH, Balm AJ, Tan B, Hilgers FJ. Long-term results of Provox ActiValve, solving the problem of frequent candida- and “underpressure”-related voice prosthesis replacements. Laryngoscope 2008;118:252–7.
  • Grolman W, Eerenstein SE, Tange RA, Canu G, Bogaardt H, Dijkhuis JP, Vocal efficiency in tracheoesophageal phonation. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008;35:83–8.
  • Hilgers FJ, Soolsma J, Ackerstaff AH, Balm FJ, Tan IB, Van den Brekel MW. A thin tracheal silicone washer to solve periprosthetic leakage in laryngectomies: direct results and long-term clinical effects. Laryngoscope 2008;118:640–5.
  • van As CJ, Koopmans-van Beinum FJ, Pols LCW, Hilgers FJM. Perceptual evaluations of tracheoesophageal speech by naive and experienced judges through the use of semantic differential scales. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003;46:947–59.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.