Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCoffey, Margaret
dc.contributor.authorTolley, N
dc.contributor.authorHoward, D
dc.contributor.authorHickson, Mary
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-18T11:37:16Z
dc.date.issued2018-10
dc.identifier.issn0179-051X
dc.identifier.issn1432-0460
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/11290
dc.description.abstract

Voice prostheses have been examined for their effect on voice production but there is little datum on their effect on swallow function. This study investigated the difference between six commonly available voice prostheses in terms of swallowing. Laryngectomy patients had up to six voice prostheses placed in a random order over two visits. Swallowing was evaluated for each prosthesis using FEES (Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing). After each prosthesis trial, patients self-evaluated their experience of swallowing. Three independent experts indicated which prosthesis they considered best for swallowing for each patient and judged residue on the voice prosthesis and in the upper esophagus. Raters were blinded to participant details, voice prosthesis type and scores of other raters. On patient self-evaluation, scores were equally distributed across all prostheses for swallowing. Experts most frequently chose the Blom Singer Low pressure and Blom Singer Classic Indwelling voice prostheses as best for swallowing but consensus was poor for most patients. Experts found that the Blom Singer Classic Indwelling and the Provox Vega had least residue on the voice prosthesis on thin liquid (p ≤ 0.001) and soft (p = 0.001), respectively. Experts also found that the Blom Singer Low Pressure had least residue in the upper esophagus on soft consistency (p ≤ 0.001). While self-evaluation by patients did not identify a consistently preferred prosthesis for swallow, many patients expressed personal preferences, suggesting benefits to involving patients in the choice of prosthesis. Some voice prostheses may be associated with lower levels of residue on the prosthesis and upper esophagus with certain consistencies.

dc.format.extent616-626
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.subjectLaryngectomy
dc.subjectDysphagia
dc.subjectVoice prosthesis
dc.subjectFEES
dc.titleDouble Blind Study Investigating the Effect of Different Voice Prostheses on Ease of Swallowing and Residue Post Laryngectomy
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000443989300004&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue5
plymouth.volume33
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalDysphagia
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00455-018-9880-0
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Health Professions
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-01-30
dc.identifier.eissn1432-0460
dc.rights.embargoperiodNo embargo
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s00455-018-9880-0
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-10
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV