These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Results of rehabilitation of voice and speeches after implantation of valve vocal prosthesis at ill after total removal of larynx].
    Author: Ratajczak J, Wojdas A, Jurkiewicz D.
    Journal: Otolaryngol Pol; 2008; 62(6):727-30. PubMed ID: 19205520.
    Abstract:
    Ill applying with extensive infiltration of new-growth within of larynx will demand radical therapeutic procedure, which is operation completely removals of organ. Aim of work was estimation of voice and speeches ill with vocal fistula in comparison with oesophageal voice and speech and with physiological. With research one embraced 81 men in age 42-75 of years. Group I--32 ill with cancer of larynx, to which executed total laryngectomy and placed the voice prosthesis Provox 2. Group II--30 ill after operation total removals of larynx, whiches used oesophageal speech. The control group III--19 persons with physiological voice. Research one began from subjective estimation of replacement voices. Then one executed measurements maximum phonation time of vowel "a". To objective estimation of voice one used polish programme "IRIS". One compared: maximum intensities of voices for colloquial speech, F0, Jitter, Shimmer and NHR. In subjective estimation voice of the patients with voice prostheses was greater freedom of production and voice of the patients with voice prostheses appeared to be more loud in relation to oesophageal voice. Greatest statistical essential differences one obtained between maximum phonation times of vowels "a" where clearly is visible, that values obtained for voices of the patients with voice prostheses are to nearer values for physiological voices. Obtained averages values of acoustic analysis: F0, Jitter, Shimmer and NHR did not show statistical of essential differences between voices supplementary, though parameters of voice of the patients with voice prostheses one was to nearer parameters of physiological voice. Characterization perceptive and acoustic speech of the patients with voice prostheses in comparison with oesophageal speech is to nearer characterization of physiological speech. Lack of satisfactory effects of rehabilitation of oesophageal speech, should be effective secondary implantation vocal prosthesis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]