Search

In oral cancer treatment, function loss such as speech and swallowing deterioration can be severe, mostly due to reduced lingual mobility. Until now, there is no standardized measurement tool for tongue mobility and pre-operative prediction of function loss is based on expert opinion instead of evidence based insight. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of a triple-camera setup for the measurement of tongue range of motion (ROM) in healthy adults and its feasibility in patients with partial glossectomy. A triple-camera setup was used, and 3D coordinates of the tongue in five standardized tongue positions were achieved in 15 healthy volunteers. Maximum distances between the tip of the tongue and the maxillary midline were calculated. Each participant was recorded twice, and each movie was analysed three times by two separate raters. Intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliability were the main outcome measures. Secondly, feasibility of the method was tested in ten patients treated for oral tongue carcinoma. Intrarater, interrater and test-retest reliability all showed high correlation coefficients of >0.9 in both study groups. All healthy subjects showed perfect symmetrical tongue ROM. In patients, significant differences in lateral tongue movements were found, due to restricted tongue mobility after surgery. This triple-camera setup is a reliable measurement tool to assess three-dimensional information of tongue ROM. It constitutes an accurate tool for objective grading of reduced tongue mobility after partial glossectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To assess the endotracheal temperature and humidity and clinical effects of 2 models of a new heat and moisture exchanger (HME): Rplus, which has regular breathing resistance, and Lplus, which has lower breathing resistance. METHODS: We measured endotracheal temperature and humidity in 10 laryngectomized patients, for 10 min each, with and without the HMEs. We sequentially tested 4 HME models (all Atos Medical, Hörby, Sweden), in randomized order: Rplus, Lplus, Provox Normal (the HME we regularly use and which we considered the reference HME), and Stomvent (an older HME model). We also assessed the short-term clinical and practical effects of the Rplus and Lplus in a prospective 3-week trial with 13 laryngectomized patients. RESULTS: Rplus and Lplus had better humidification than Provox Normal (6.8 mg H2O/L, 4.3 mg H2O/L, and 3.7 mg H2O/L, respectively, P < .001), and no significant temperature difference. During the 3-week study period, 7 of the 13 patients reported noticeably lower mucus production with Rplus and Lplus. CONCLUSIONS: Rplus and Lplus had better heating and humidification than Provox Normal. Although Stomvent also performed well, its design is less convenient for laryngectomized patients. Further HME improvement is still warranted and should focus on improving the HME's heating capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusion: Both the regularly used heat and moisture exchanger (R-HME) and the HME with both an antimicrobial and hygroscopic element (F-HME) are effective moisture exchangers. The antimicrobial filter of the F-HME acts as a heat exchanger. The external features of the F-HME were experienced as inconvenient, but decreased sputum production was reported as well. Objectives: Recently an HME with an integrated antimicrobial filter has become available for use in laryngectomized patients. The purpose of this study was to assess its short-term endotracheal climate changes and feasibility in daily practice. Methods: Endotracheal temperature and humidity were successfully measured in 13 laryngectomized patients (2652 analysed full breaths), during 10 min rest-breathing with the R-HME, with an F-HME and without HME in a randomized sequence. Additionally, a 3 week prospective clinical feasibility trial was conducted in 17 laryngectomized patients. Results: Both R-HME and F-HME increase endotracheal minimum humidity values (5.8 and 4.7 mgH2O/L, respectively; p < 0.0001). Compared with open stoma breathing, in contrast to the R-HME, the F-HME increases both end-inspiratory and end-expiratory temperature values (1.1°C, and 0.6°C, respectively). After the 3-week clinical feasibility trial, one patient dropped out; 11 patients (11/16 = 69%) disliked the larger design of the F-HME and all patients reported less optimal airtight occlusion. Five patients (5/16 = 31%) reported remarkably decreased sputum production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conclusions: Provox Vega prostheses demonstrate good short-term feasibility, and their optimized airflow-resistance design offers laryngectomy patients indwelling voice prostheses with more choices in outer diameters without sacrificing (too) much in voice quality. Objectives: Technological progress enables improvement of in vitro airflow characteristics of voice prostheses and design of voice prostheses with smaller outer diameters. This could potentially improve voice quality in users of Provox2, and avoid diminished voice quality in users of prostheses with smaller outer diameters. Methods: This was a prospective clinical phase I/feasibility study of three newly designed indwelling voice prostheses (Provox Vega 22.5 (Provox2 successor), 20, and 17Fr). Assessments consisted of patients' self-reported voice and speech, perceptual evaluation, acoustic analysis, maximum phonation time, loudness, speech rate, pull-out force and adaptation of the tracheoesophageal (TE) puncture to smaller diameter voice prostheses. Vega 22.5 was assessed in 15 patients (all Provox ActiValve users, observation period 3 weeks), and 16 patients with Vega 20/17 (2 weeks each). Results: No voice prostheses problems were encountered. Half of the patients with Vega 22.5 preferred that for its better voice quality. Voice and speech were considered equal to Provox2 for Vega 20, but slightly less for Vega 17. Most TE punctures adapted well to the smaller diameter voice prostheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives/hypothesis: To assess device life of the new Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr prostheses, to establish whether the optimized airflow characteristics of these devices materialize in better voice characteristics in comparison to Provox2, and to assess the feasibility of voice prosthesis replacement with the new Smart Inserter., Study Design: Prospective clinical phase II study., Methods: Prospective clinical phase II study including two patient cohorts (Provox Vega 22.5 Fr: N = 33; Provox Vega 20 Fr: N = 26). Device-life assessment, subjective data collection with study-specific structured questionnaires, perceptual analysis (Comparative Mean Opinion Score), and objective voice analysis (standard Dutch text, maximum phonation time, and dynamic range)., Results: Device life of both prostheses appears comparable to Provox2. Several voice characteristics were better in Vega 22.5, which coincides well with patients' preference. Voicing with Vega 20 appears comparable to Provox2. Use of Smart Inserter showed a short learning curve, and was considered an improvement by the clinicians., Conclusions: The new Provox Vega 22.5 and 20 Fr prostheses have a device life comparable to Provox2, whereas voicing is better than (with the 22.5 Fr version) or comparable (with the 20 Fr version) to Provox2. The Smart Inserter, after a short learning curve, turns out to be a further improvement of the anterograde replacement of these indwelling devices.