4.1 Article

The French way of voice rehabilitation post total laryngectomy: current clinical practices and tendencies

Journal

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
Volume 143, Issue 5, Pages 440-445

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016489.2023.2206873

Keywords

Total laryngectomy; voice prosthesis; vocal rehabilitation; tracheoesophageal puncture; head and neck

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article describes the tendencies of vocal rehabilitation post total laryngectomy (TL) in France and compares it with other countries. The survey results show that tracheoesophageal speech (TES) is the most practiced modality, either alone or in combination with esophageal speech (ES).
BackgroundVocal rehabilitation post total laryngectomy (TL) lacks clinical guidelines, especially with the presence of multiple modalities.ObjectivesTo describe the tendencies of vocal rehabilitation post TL in France and compare it with other countries. We try to identify the most practiced modalities and recognize statistically significant influencing factors.Materials and methodsAn electronic anonymous survey was answered by 75 ENT surgeons from France. The survey outlined the common practiced vocal rehabilitation modalities and had two versions depending on if the participant practices the tracheoesophageal speech (TES) or not.Results96% use TES in their practice. Single modality TES and double modality TES with esophageal speech (ES) are the two most practiced modalities. 99% agreed that there is no age limit for the TES. Single modality ES was offered 92% more when more than 10 TL were performed per year (p < .05). No influencing factors found for single modality TES or double modality TES with ES (p > .05).Conclusion: In line with tendencies from other countries, the TES is the most practiced modality of vocal rehabilitation coupled or not with the ES. TES has no age limit as per our participants. The least practiced modality is the singe modality ALS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available