Summary
The use of various prostheses for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy has become widely accepted in recent years. Two different types of prostheses can be distinguished: non-indwelling devices, which can be removed and replaced by the patient, and indwelling voice prostheses, which have to be removed and replaced by a physician. In this report we describe the in vitro measurement of the airflow dynamics of the recently developed Provox low-resistance, indwelling voice prosthesis. Airflows used in these experiments varied from 0.05 to 0.4 1s−1. With increasing flows, the transdevice air pressure against airflow rates increased from 0.28 kPa to 1.36 kPa, while the mean airflow resistance decreased from 5.6 to 3.4 kPa 1−1 s−1. From these data and by comparison with data for other prostheses, the Provox voice prosthesis shows favorable airflow characteristics.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Annyas AA, Nijdam HF, Escajadillo JR, Mahieu HF, Leever H (1984) Groningen prosthesis for voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Clin Otolaryngol 9:51–54
Baugh F, Lewin JS, Baker SR (1990) Vocal rehabilitation of tracheoesophageal speech failures. Head Neck 12:69–73
Ben Jebria A, Henry C, Petit J, Gioux M, Devars F, Tressac L (1987) Physical and aerodynamic features of the Bordeaux voice prosthesis. Artif Organs 11: 383–387
Hilgers FJM, Balm AJM (1993) Long term results of vocal rehabilitation after total laryngectomy with the low-resistance, indwelling Provox™ voice prosthesis system. Clin Otolaryngol (in press)
Hilgers FJM, Schouwenburg PIT (1990) A new low-resistance, self-retaining prosthesis (ProvoxTM) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 100:1202–1207
Manni JJ, Broek P van den (1990) Surgical and prosthesis-related complications using the Groningen button voice prosthesis. Clin Otolaryngol 15:515–523
Nieboer GLJ, Schutte HK (1987) Aerodynamic properties of buttons and button-assisted oesophageal speech. In: Hermann IF (ed) Speech restoration via voice prostheses. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 87–91
Nieboer GLJ, Schutte HK (1987) The Groningen button: results of in vivo measurements. Rev Laryngol 108:121–122
Nijdam HF, Annyas AA, Schutte HK, Leever H (1982) A new prosthesis for voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 237:27–33
Panje WR (1981) Prosthetic voice rehabilitation following laryngectomy: the voice button. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 90:116–120
Singer MI, Blom ED (1980) An endoscopic technique for restoration of voice after laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 89:529–533
Singer MI, Blom ED (1981) Selective myotomy for voice restoration after total laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol 107:670–763
Singer MI, Blom ED, Hamaker RC (1986) Pharyngeal plexus neurectomy for alaryngeal speech rehabilitation. Laryngoscope 96:50–53
Smith BE (1986) Aerodynamic characteristics of Blom-Singer low-pressure vioce prostheses. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 112:50–52
Smitheran JR, Hixon TJ (1981) A clinical method for estimating laryngeal airway resistance during vowel production. J Speech Hear Dis 46:138–146
Weinberg B (1982) Airway resistance of the voice button. Arch Otolaryngol 108:498–500
Weinberg B, Moon J (1984) Aerodynamic properties of four tracheoesophageal puncture prostheses. Arch Otolaryngol 110: 673–675
Weinberg B, Moon JB (1986) Airway resistances of Blom-Singer and Panje low-pressure tracheoesophageal puncture prostheses. J Speech Hear Disord 51:169–172
Williams SE, Watson JB (1987) Speaking proficiency variations according to method of alaryngeal voicing. Laryngoscope 97:737–739
Zijlstra RJ, Mahieu HF, Lith-Bijl JT van, Schutte HK (1991) Aerodynamic properties of the low-resistance Groningen button. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:657–661
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hilgers, F.J.M., Cornelissen, M.W. & Balm, A.J.M. Aerodynamic characteristics of the Provox low-resistance indwelling voice prosthesis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 250, 375–378 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180379
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00180379