Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To analyze the effectiveness of the Provox2 voice prosthesis for voice rehabilitation following total laryngectomy.
Methods: From September 2000 to December 2004, the Provox2 voice prosthesis was used for voice rehabilitation in 32 patients following total laryngectomy. The quality of speech with the Provox2 voice prosthesis was analyzed using the HRS rating scale, the maximum phonation time (MPT), incidence of complications and the in situ lifetime. The rate of speech restoration was further analyzed in 129 patients with total laryngectomy from 1996 to 2004.
Result: Twenty-nine of 32 patients were able to restore speech using the Provox2 voice prosthesis, a speech restoration rate of 90.6%. The maximum phonation time (MPT) was measured in 18 patients using the Provox2 voice prosthesis. The mean MPT was 15.1 s, with a range of 8-28 s. MPT was not influenced by age, concurrent radiotherapy treatment, the location of the primary tumor or use of reconstructive surgery. The average lifetime of the Provox2 in patients with laryngeal carcinoma (12 patients) and hypopharyngeal carcinoma (17 patients) was 27.2 and 16.6 weeks, respectively, which was significantly different (P=0.024, non-parametric Mann-Whitney's U-test). The rate of speech restoration by the use of esophageal speech, and insertion of an artificial larynx was 62.7% for laryngeal carcinoma (59 cases) and 38.6% for hypopharyngeal carcinoma (70 cases), which was also significantly different (P<0.01, chi-square test).
Conclusion: Provox2 voice prosthesis speech was very useful due to the higher rate of speech restoration, longer phonatory time, and better intelligibility. It was also thought that voice prosthesis speech was useful in conjunction with esophageal speech and an artificial larynx depending on the patient's condition or wishes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2006.09.017 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!