Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCoffey, MM
dc.contributor.authorTolley, N
dc.contributor.authorHoward, D
dc.contributor.authorHickson, Mary
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-20T10:50:29Z
dc.date.issued2018-11
dc.identifier.issn0023-852X
dc.identifier.issn1531-4995
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/11862
dc.description.abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>To investigate the difference between voice prostheses in terms of voice quality as experienced by patients and as judged by expert raters.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Subjects had up to six voice prostheses placed in a random order. A voice sample was elicited for each patient on each prosthesis. Auditory perceptual voice analysis of each voice sample was undertaken by expert raters using the Sunderland Tracheoesophageal Voice Perceptual Scale (SToPS). Raters also identified the best overall prosthesis for voice for each patient. Raters were blinded to patient details, type of laryngectomy surgery, type of voice prosthesis, and scores of other raters. After each prosthesis trial, patients self‐evaluated voice using a questionnaire developed for this purpose.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Expert raters were not able to identify a best overall voice prosthesis using SToPS. Expert raters most frequently chose the Blom‐Singer Classic Indwelling (InHealth Technologies, Carpinteria, CA) as the overall best prosthesis for voice for each patient. Patient self‐evaluation scores indicated a preference for the Blom‐Singer Classic Indwelling Prosthesis (InHealth Technologies) for voice, whereas preference for best overall prosthesis was for the Provox NID (Atos Medical AB, Hörby, Sweden)</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Expert raters did not identify a best prosthesis for voice using SToPS, although the Blom‐Singer Classic Indwelling (InHealth Technologies) was most frequently chosen as best for voice. Patient self‐evaluation indicated a difference between preference of prosthesis for voice and preference for best overall voice prosthesis. Individual patients had their own personal preferences, suggesting they should be involved in the choice of their voice prosthesis.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Level of Evidence</jats:title><jats:p>4. <jats:italic>Laryngoscope</jats:italic>, 2460–2466, 2018</jats:p></jats:sec>

dc.format.extent2460-2466
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.subjectLaryngectomy
dc.subjectalaryngeal
dc.subjectvoice prosthesis
dc.titleEvaluating the effect of different voice prostheses on alaryngeal voice quality
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeComparative Study
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:000451624900012&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue11
plymouth.volume128
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalThe Laryngoscope
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/lary.27171
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.dateAccepted2018-02-12
dc.rights.embargodate2019-8-27
dc.identifier.eissn1531-4995
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1002/lary.27171
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-11
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