Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses.
Identifieur interne : 000391 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 000390; suivant : 000392Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses.
Auteurs : P. Kress ; P. Sch Fer ; F P Schwerdtfeger ; S. RöslerSource :
- European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery [ 1434-4726 ] ; 2014.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare device life of more recent indwelling voice prostheses Provox Vega and Blom-Singer Dual Valve to device life of well-known standard devices (Provox 2, Blom-Singer Classic). In a prospective, non-randomised study, device life of Blom-Singer Classic, Blom-Singer Dual Valve, Provox2, Provox Vega and Provox ActiValve voice prostheses was recorded in a group of 102 laryngectomised patients. In total 749 voice prosthesis were included. Average overall life time was 108 days, median 74 days. The prosthesis with the longest dwell time was the Provox ActiValve (median 291 days). Provox Vega had longer device life compared with Provox2 (median 92 days vs 66 days; p = 0.006) and compared with Blom-Singer Classic (median 92 days vs 69 days; p = 0.004). In conclusion, device lifetimes of Provox Vega and ActiValve were better than those of Provox2 and the Blom-Singer Classic. New voice prostheses, with a defined valve opening pressure (Provox Vega, Provox ActiValve, Blom-Singer Dual Valve) had longer lifetimes than prostheses without a defined opening pressure (Blom-Singer Classic and Provox 2).
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-013-2611-0
PubMed: 23812585
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:23812585Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses.</title><author><name sortKey="Kress, P" sort="Kress, P" uniqKey="Kress P" first="P" last="Kress">P. Kress</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Klinikum Mutterhaus der Borromaerinnen, Feldstrasse 16, 54290, Trier, Germany, kresspeter@yahoo.de.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sch Fer, P" sort="Sch Fer, P" uniqKey="Sch Fer P" first="P" last="Sch Fer">P. Sch Fer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schwerdtfeger, F P" sort="Schwerdtfeger, F P" uniqKey="Schwerdtfeger F" first="F P" last="Schwerdtfeger">F P Schwerdtfeger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rosler, S" sort="Rosler, S" uniqKey="Rosler S" first="S" last="Rösler">S. Rösler</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2014">2014</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:23812585</idno><idno type="pmid">23812585</idno><idno type="doi">10.1007/s00405-013-2611-0</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000391</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000391</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses.</title><author><name sortKey="Kress, P" sort="Kress, P" uniqKey="Kress P" first="P" last="Kress">P. Kress</name><affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Klinikum Mutterhaus der Borromaerinnen, Feldstrasse 16, 54290, Trier, Germany, kresspeter@yahoo.de.</nlm:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sch Fer, P" sort="Sch Fer, P" uniqKey="Sch Fer P" first="P" last="Sch Fer">P. Sch Fer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schwerdtfeger, F P" sort="Schwerdtfeger, F P" uniqKey="Schwerdtfeger F" first="F P" last="Schwerdtfeger">F P Schwerdtfeger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rosler, S" sort="Rosler, S" uniqKey="Rosler S" first="S" last="Rösler">S. Rösler</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery</title><idno type="eISSN">1434-4726</idno><imprint><date when="2014" type="published">2014</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Female</term><term>Humans</term><term>Larynx, Artificial</term><term>Male</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Prospective Studies</term><term>Prosthesis Design</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Adult</term><term>Aged</term><term>Aged, 80 and over</term><term>Female</term><term>Humans</term><term>Larynx, Artificial</term><term>Male</term><term>Middle Aged</term><term>Prospective Studies</term><term>Prosthesis Design</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The aim of the study was to compare device life of more recent indwelling voice prostheses Provox Vega and Blom-Singer Dual Valve to device life of well-known standard devices (Provox 2, Blom-Singer Classic). In a prospective, non-randomised study, device life of Blom-Singer Classic, Blom-Singer Dual Valve, Provox2, Provox Vega and Provox ActiValve voice prostheses was recorded in a group of 102 laryngectomised patients. In total 749 voice prosthesis were included. Average overall life time was 108 days, median 74 days. The prosthesis with the longest dwell time was the Provox ActiValve (median 291 days). Provox Vega had longer device life compared with Provox2 (median 92 days vs 66 days; p = 0.006) and compared with Blom-Singer Classic (median 92 days vs 69 days; p = 0.004). In conclusion, device lifetimes of Provox Vega and ActiValve were better than those of Provox2 and the Blom-Singer Classic. New voice prostheses, with a defined valve opening pressure (Provox Vega, Provox ActiValve, Blom-Singer Dual Valve) had longer lifetimes than prostheses without a defined opening pressure (Blom-Singer Classic and Provox 2).</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">23812585</PMID><DateCreated><Year>2014</Year><Month>01</Month><Day>03</Day></DateCreated><DateCompleted><Year>2014</Year><Month>09</Month><Day>16</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2015</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>23</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1434-4726</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>271</Volume><Issue>1</Issue><PubDate><Year>2014</Year><Month>Jan</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery</Title><ISOAbbreviation>Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>133-40</MedlinePgn></Pagination><ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1007/s00405-013-2611-0</ELocationID><Abstract><AbstractText>The aim of the study was to compare device life of more recent indwelling voice prostheses Provox Vega and Blom-Singer Dual Valve to device life of well-known standard devices (Provox 2, Blom-Singer Classic). In a prospective, non-randomised study, device life of Blom-Singer Classic, Blom-Singer Dual Valve, Provox2, Provox Vega and Provox ActiValve voice prostheses was recorded in a group of 102 laryngectomised patients. In total 749 voice prosthesis were included. Average overall life time was 108 days, median 74 days. The prosthesis with the longest dwell time was the Provox ActiValve (median 291 days). Provox Vega had longer device life compared with Provox2 (median 92 days vs 66 days; p = 0.006) and compared with Blom-Singer Classic (median 92 days vs 69 days; p = 0.004). In conclusion, device lifetimes of Provox Vega and ActiValve were better than those of Provox2 and the Blom-Singer Classic. New voice prostheses, with a defined valve opening pressure (Provox Vega, Provox ActiValve, Blom-Singer Dual Valve) had longer lifetimes than prostheses without a defined opening pressure (Blom-Singer Classic and Provox 2).</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Kress</LastName><ForeName>P</ForeName><Initials>P</Initials><AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Klinikum Mutterhaus der Borromaerinnen, Feldstrasse 16, 54290, Trier, Germany, kresspeter@yahoo.de.</Affiliation></AffiliationInfo></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Schäfer</LastName><ForeName>P</ForeName><Initials>P</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Schwerdtfeger</LastName><ForeName>F P</ForeName><Initials>FP</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Rösler</LastName><ForeName>S</ForeName><Initials>S</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList><ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2013</Year><Month>06</Month><Day>29</Day></ArticleDate></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Germany</Country><MedlineTA>Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>9002937</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0937-4477</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><CommentsCorrectionsList><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000 Nov;126(11):1320-8</RefSource><PMID Version="1">11074828</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Mar;270(4):1447-53</RefSource><PMID Version="1">22941391</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Acta Otolaryngol. 2003 Oct;123(8):972-9</RefSource><PMID Version="1">14606602</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Laryngol Otol. 2003 Nov;117(11):875-8</RefSource><PMID Version="1">14670148</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2003;124(5):299-304</RefSource><PMID Version="1">15144025</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Laryngoscope. 1990 Nov;100(11):1202-7</RefSource><PMID Version="1">2233085</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Semin Speech Lang. 1995 Aug;16(3):191-204</RefSource><PMID Version="1">7584807</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Acta Otolaryngol. 1997 Nov;117(6):889-96</RefSource><PMID Version="1">9442833</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Feb;125(2):167-73</RefSource><PMID Version="1">10037283</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Mar;125(3):288-92</RefSource><PMID Version="1">10190800</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005 Nov;133(5):681-4</RefSource><PMID Version="1">16274792</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Laryngorhinootologie. 2006 Dec;85(12):893-6</RefSource><PMID Version="1">16612757</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2007 Mar;58(3):110-2</RefSource><PMID Version="1">17371694</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Laryngoscope. 2008 Feb;118(2):252-7</RefSource><PMID Version="1">18090869</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008 Jul;265(7):791-6</RefSource><PMID Version="1">18008081</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Acta Otolaryngol. 2010 Apr;130(4):511-9</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19895334</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010 May;267(5):751-8</RefSource><PMID Version="1">19890656</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Laryngoscope. 2010 Jun;120(6):1135-43</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20513030</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>HNO. 2010 Dec;58(12):1174-83</RefSource><PMID Version="1">20734017</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Laryngoscope. 2011 Apr;121(4):769-76</RefSource><PMID Version="1">21381042</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Jan;270(1):255-62</RefSource><PMID Version="1">22392519</PMID></CommentsCorrections><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Laryngorhinootologie. 2001 Nov;80(11):677-81</RefSource><PMID Version="1">11702284</PMID></CommentsCorrections></CommentsCorrectionsList><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000328" MajorTopicYN="N">Adult</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000368" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000369" MajorTopicYN="N">Aged, 80 and over</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005260" MajorTopicYN="N">Female</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D006801" MajorTopicYN="N">Humans</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D007831" MajorTopicYN="Y">Larynx, Artificial</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008297" MajorTopicYN="N">Male</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D008875" MajorTopicYN="N">Middle Aged</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011446" MajorTopicYN="N">Prospective Studies</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D011474" MajorTopicYN="Y">Prosthesis Design</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList><OtherID Source="NLM">PMC3889693</OtherID></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2013</Year><Month>04</Month><Day>26</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2013</Year><Month>06</Month><Day>18</Day></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2013</Year><Month>7</Month><Day>2</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2013</Year><Month>7</Month><Day>3</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2014</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>17</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">23812585</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s00405-013-2611-0</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC3889693</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/PubMed/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000391 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000391 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= PubMed
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:23812585
|texte= Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:23812585" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a UnivTrevesV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |