Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T02:46:22.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speech assessment of patients using three types of indwelling tracheo-oesophageal voice prostheses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

J. M. Heaton ,
D. Sanderson ,
I. R. Dunsmore  and
A. J. Parker
J. M. Heaton*
Affiliation:
Sheffield University Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield
D. Sanderson
Affiliation:
Sheffield University Department of Probability & Statistics, P.O. Box 597, Sheffield, UK
I. R. Dunsmore
Affiliation:
Sheffield University Department of Probability & Statistics, P.O. Box 597, Sheffield, UK
A. J. Parker
Affiliation:
Sheffield University Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield
*
Address for correspondence: Miss J. M. Heaton, F.R.C.S., Department of Otolaryngology, Sheffield University, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A multidisciplinary prospective study compared speech acceptability between three types of indwelling tracheo-oesophageal voice prostheses. Twenty male laryngectomees took part over five years, using 42 prostheses. Speech was assessed on a discrete scale by trained and untrained personnel. The majority scored in the mid-range for each assessor. The kappa coefficient was used to test similarity between assessors, and for all pairings agreement was significant (p<0.05). The speech and language therapist tended to give higher scores and the patient lower. A relationship was found between patients' ages categorized by decade and the surgeon's score alone. This relationship held for Groningen high resistance and Provox prostheses individually too (p<0.05). The untrained assessed similarly to the professionals – humans are all voice listeners. The analysis suggests surgeons find tracheo-oesophageal speech in older patients better than in younger ones; or make more allowances for the elderly. There was a trend for Provox prostheses to produce the best scores.

Keywords

Larynx artificialVoice quality
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 110 , Issue 4 , April 1996 , pp. 343 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1996

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

Bennett, S., Weinberg, B. (1973) Acceptability ratings of normal, oesophageal and artificial laryngeal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 54: 482–499.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational Psychology Measurement 20: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, J. M., Parker, A. J. (1994a) Indwelling tracheooesophageal voice prostheses post-laryngectomy in Sheffield, U.K.: a six-year review. Acta Otolaryngologica (Stockholm) 114: 675–678.Google Scholar
Heaton, J. M., Parker, A. J. (1994b) In vitro comparison of the Groningen high resistance, Groningen low resistance and Provox speaking valves. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 108: 321–324.Google Scholar
Heaton, J. M., Sanderson, D., Dunsmore, I. R., Parker, A. J. (1996) In vivo measurements of indwelling tracheo-oesophageal prostheses in a laryngeal speech. Clinical Otolaryngology (in press).Google Scholar
Hilgers, F. J. M., Schouwenberg, P. F. (1990) A new low resistance, self-retaining prosthesis (Provoxtm) for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 100: 1202–1207.Google Scholar
Merwin, G. E., Goldstein, L. P., Rothman, H. B. (1985) A comparison of speech using artificial larynx and tracheooesophageal puncture in the same speaker. Laryngoscope 95: 730–734.Google Scholar
Nijdam, H. F., Annyas, A. A., Schutte, H. K., Leever, H. (1982) A new prosthesis for voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Archives of Otorhinolaryngology 237: 27–33.Google Scholar
O'Leary, I. K., Heaton, J. M., Clegg, R. T., Parker, A. J. (1994) Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheooesophageal speech using the Groningen valve. Folia Phoniatrica 46: 180–187.Google Scholar
Parker, A. J., Stevens, J. C., Thornton, J., Clegg, R. T. (1992) Provox valve function in relation to speech acceptability and serial in vivo pressure: flow parameters. Presented at 2nd International Symposium in Phonosurgery,Amsterdam, Netherlands,May 1992.Google Scholar
Pindzola, R. H., Cain, B. H. (1988) Acceptability ratings of tracheooesophageal speech. Laryngoscope 98: 394–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robbins, J., Fisher, H. B., Blom, E. D., Singer, M. I. (1984) Selected acoustic features of tracheooesophageal, esophageal and laryngeal speech. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 110: 670–672.Google Scholar
Tardy-Mitzell, S., Andrews, M. L., Bowman, S. A. (1985) Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheooesophageal speech. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 111: 213–215.Google Scholar
Zijlstra, R. J., Mahieu, H. F., van Lith-Bijl, J., Schutte, H. K. (1991) Aerodynamic properties of the low-resistance Groningen button. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 117: 657–661.Google Scholar