Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-10T13:25:15.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of primary, cross-over, zigzag neopharyngoplasty on acoustic characteristics of alaryngeal, tracheoesophageal voice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2011

O A Albirmawy
O A Albirmawy*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Tanta University Hospital, Egypt
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Osama Amin Albirmawy, 88 Reyad St, Tanta 31211, Gharbeya, Egypt E-mail: albirmawy@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the effect of primary, cross-over, zigzag neopharyngeal construction on tracheoesophageal voice, compared with pharyngoesophageal myotomy, following total laryngectomy with partial pharyngectomy.

Study design:

Prospective clinical trial.

Setting:

Otolaryngology department, Tanta University Hospital (tertiary referral centre), Egypt.

Patients and methods:

Over five years, 30 patients underwent total laryngectomy with partial pharyngectomy to manage stage III or IV laryngeal cancer, followed by primary tracheoesophageal puncture for voice restoration. For neopharyngeal construction, 15 patients underwent pharyngoesophageal myotomy (group one) and 15 cross-over, zigzag neopharyngoplasty (group two). Acoustic parameters of tracheoesophageal voice were compared.

Results:

Most acoustic parameters were almost equivalent for the two groups, although significant differences were seen for loud intensity, dynamic range, shimmer, loud fundamental frequency, loud jitter, fluency and speaking rate. One post-operative pharyngocutaneous fistula (6.6 per cent) occurred in each group, and resolved with conservative measures.

Conclusion:

The cross-over neopharyngoplasty modification of hypopharyngeal closure may help avoid pharyngoesophageal spasm and assist maintenance of effective voice amplitude, fundamental frequencies, temporal measures and perceptual values.

Keywords

Voice Production, AlaryngealTracheoesophageal FistulaLaryngectomy
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 125 , Issue 8 , August 2011 , pp. 841 - 848
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Terada, T, Saeki, N, Toh, K, Uwa, N, Sagawa, K, Takayasu, S. Voice rehabilitation with Provox 2™ voice prosthesis following total laryngectomy for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Auris Nasus Larynx 2007;34:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Grolman, W, Eerenstein, SEJ, Tange, RA, Canu, G, Bogaardt, H, Dijkhuis, JP et al. Vocal efficiency in tracheoesophageal phonation. Auris Nasus Larynx 2008;35:83–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Kazi, R, Kanagalingam, J, Venkitaraman, R, Prasad, V, Clarke, P, Nutting, CM et al. Electroglottographic and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal speech. J Voice 2009;23:247–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Singer, MI, Blom, ED, Hamaker, RC. Further experience with voice restoration after total laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1981;90:498–502CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Blom, ED, Pauloski, BR, Hamaker, RC. Functional outcome after surgery for prevention of pharyngospasms in tracheoesophageal speakers. Part 1: speech characteristics. Laryngoscope 1995;105:1093–103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Deschler, DG, Doherty, ET, Reed, CG, Hayden, RE, Singer, MI. Prevention of pharyngoesophageal spasm after laryngectomy with a half-muscle closure technique. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2000;109:514–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Albirmawy, OA, Elsheikh, MN, Saafan, ME, Elsheikh, E. Managing problems with tracheoesophageal puncture for alaryngeal voice rehabilitation. J Laryngol Otol 2006;120:470–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Albirmawy, OA, El-Guindy, AS, Elsheikh, MN, Saafan, ME, Darwish, ME. Effect of primary neopharyngeal repair on acoustic characteristics of tracheoesophageal voice after total laryngectomy. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:426–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Singer, MI, Blom, ED, Hamaker, RC. Pharyngeal plexus neurectomy for alaryngeal speech rehabilitation. Laryngoscope 1986;96:50–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Hamaker, RC, Singer, MI, Blom, ED, Daniels, HA. Primary voice restoration at laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol 1985;111:182–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Clevens, RA, Esclamado, RM, Martshorn, DO, Lewin, JS. Voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy and tracheoesophageal puncture using nonmuscle closure. Ann Otol Rhinol 1993;102:792–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Singer, MI, Blom, ED. Selective mytomy for voice restoration after laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol 1981;107:670–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Baugh, RF, Baker, SR, Lewis, JS. Surgical treatment of pharyngoesophageal spasm. Laryngoscope 1988;98:1124–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Yoshida, GY, Hamaker, RC, Singer, MI, Blom, ED. Primary voice restoration at laryngectomy: 1989 update. Laryngoscope 1989;99:1093–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Most, T, Tobin, Y, Mimran, RC. Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of esophageal and tracheoesophageal speech production. J Commun Disord 2000;33:165–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Hamaker, RC, Cheesman, AD. Surgical management of pharyngeal constrictor muscle hypertonicity. In: ED, Blom, MI, Singer, RC, Hamaker, eds. Tracheoesophageal Voice Restoration Following Total Laryngectomy. San Diego: Singular, 1998;33–9Google Scholar
17Deschler, DG, Doherty, ET, Reed, CG, Singer, MI. Effects of sound pressure levels on fundamental frequency in tracheoesophageal speakers. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;121:23–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Moon, JB, Weinberg, B. Aerodynamic and myoelastic contributions to tracheoesophageal voice production. J Speech Hear Res 1987;30:387–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Omori, K, Kojima, H, Nonomura, M, Fukushima, H. Mechanism of tracheoesophageal shunt phonation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;120:648–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Hui, Y, Wei, WI, Yuen, PW, Lam, LK, Nho, WK. Primary closure of pharyngeal remnant after total laryngectomy and partial pharyngectomy: how much residual mucosa is sufficient? Laryngoscope 1996;106:490–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Iwai, H, Tsuji, H, Tachikawa, T, Inoue, T, Izumikawa, M, Yamamichi, K et al. Neoglottic formation from posterior pharyngeal wall conserved in surgery for hypopharyngeal cancer. Auris Nasus Larynx 2002;29:153–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Robbins, J, Fisher, H, Blom, E, Singer, M. A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech production. J Speech Hear Dis 1984;49:202–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Blood, G. Fundamental frequency and intensity in laryngeal and alaryngeal speakers. J Communic Dis 1984;17:319–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Cornu, AS, Vlantis, AC, Elliott, H, Gregor, RT. Voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy with the Provox voice prosthesis in South Africa. J Laryngol Otol 2003;117:56–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Van As, CJ, Koopmans-Van Beinum, FJ, Pols, LCW, Hilgers, FJM. Perceptual evaluation of tracheoesphageal speech by naïve and experienced judges through the use of semantic scales. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003;46:947–59Google Scholar
26Van Gogh, CD, Festen, JM, Verdonck-de Leeuw, IM, Parker, AJ, Traissac, L, Cheesman, AD, et al. Acoustical analysis of tracheoesophageal voice. Speech Communic 2005;47:160–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar