Electrolarynx

Abstract: This two-part investigation assessed functional outcomes related to communication (including amount of speech therapy), swallowing and eating, and employment status for patients who received one of the two treatment modalities for advanced laryngeal cancer (stage III or IV laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma) in Veterans Administration Cooperative Study #268. One hundred sixty-six patients were randomized to primary surgery (laryngectomy) and radiotherapy (RT), and 166 to induction chemotherapy (CT) and RT. The first investigation dealt with examining and comparing functional outcomes for patients in the two treatment arms of the main study. Results showed clearly that patients with advanced laryngeal cancer are better off from the standpoint of speech communication if they can be treated for this disease without removal of the larynx. In contrast, there were few significant differences between patient groups for other non-speech-related measures. The second investigation focused on communication-related outcomes associated with the rehabilitation of total laryngectomy patients. Results revealed that only relatively small percentages of total laryngectomy patients (6%) developed usable esophageal speech or remained nonvocal (8%), and that a majority of patients ended up as users of artificial electrolarynx (55%) or tracheoesophageal (31%) speech. The results from both investigations are discussed with respect to factors that can influence the rehabilitation process and long-term outcome status of patients who are treated for advanced laryngeal cancer with these two strategies.

Abstract: Esophageal speech (ES), tracheoesophageal speech (TES) and/or electrolarynx speech (ELS) are three speech rehabilitation methods which are commonly provided after total laryngectomy (TL). A systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate comparative acoustic, perceptual, and patient-reported outcomes for ES, TES, ELS and healthy speakers. Twenty-six articles could be included. In most studies, methodological quality was low. It is likely that an inclusion bias exists, many studies only included exceptional speakers. Significant better outcomes are reported for TES compared to ES for the acoustic parameters, fundamental frequency, maximum phonation time and intensity. Perceptually, TES is rated with a significant better voice quality and intelligibility than ES and ELS. None of the speech rehabilitation groups reported clearly better outcomes in patient-reported outcomes. Studies on speech outcomes after TL are flawed in design and represent weak levels of evidence. There is an urge for standardized measurement tools for evaluations of substitute voice speakers. TES is the favorable speech rehabilitation method according to acoustic and perceptual outcomes. All speaker groups after TL report a degree of voice handicap. Knowledge of caretakers and differences in health care and insurance systems play a role in the speech rehabilitation options that can be offered.

Abstract: Objectives: To determine the satisfaction of patients with their current method of alaryngeal communication. To focus primarily on the patients' perception of their own speech. Design: A retrospective review of patients who underwent total laryngectomy for malignancy identified 4 groups of patients. A survey using a mailed questionnaire was used to compare groups. Setting: Tertiary care university hospital, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. Patients: Forty-seven patients underwent total laryngectomy for cancer and survived. Thirty-one of the 47 patients responded to the survey. Patients were divided into 4 groups by their current method of communication: (1) tablet writers; (2) esophageal speech; (3) electrolarynx; and (4) tracheoesophageal speech. Main Outcome Measures: Satisfaction with communication, satisfaction with speech quality, ability to communicate over telephone, limitation of interaction with others, and satisfaction with quality of life. Results: Patients in group 4 were significantly more satisfied with their speech (P Conclusion: Although many studies in the past have demonstrated the objective superiority of tracheoesophageal speech compared with other methods of alaryngeal communication, most studies have focused on the intelligibility of speech judged by listeners. This study demonstrates that patients who use tracheoesophageal speech rate their own speech significantly higher than patients who use other methods and most likely have an overall superior quality of life. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123:493-496