Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:36:40.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characteristics of Groningen tracheo-oesophageal speaking valves prior to insertion and after removal for failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

A. J. Parker ,
J. C. Stevens ,
M. H. Wickham  and
R. T. Clegg
A. J. Parker*
Affiliation:
Sheffield
J. C. Stevens
Affiliation:
Sheffield
M. H. Wickham
Affiliation:
Sheffield
R. T. Clegg
Affiliation:
Sheffield
*
Mr A. J. Parker, Ch.M., F.R.C.S., Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Groningen valve was first used in Sheffield in 1986 in a patient who underwent laryngectomy for malignant disease. Since then it has been the main tracheo-oesophageal prosthesis used on our Unit for speech rehabilitation post-laryngectomy. This biflanged device inserted primarily or as a secondary procedure remains in situ until failure occurs either because of leakage or because increased effort is required to produce satisfactory phonation. This in vitro study we examined the differences between new valves prior to insertion and those removed for failure. The mean forward opening pressures were shown to be similar in the two populations but the mean forward resistances were increased in those valves which were defective (P<0.001). In addition the mean reverse opening pressure was found to be significantly lower in the defective valves when compared with their new counterparts (p<0.05).

Keywords

Laryngeal prosthesis
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 106 , Issue 6 , June 1992 , pp. 521 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1992

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

Chen, T. Y., Webster, J. H. (1974) Oral monilial study of patients with head and neck cancer during radiotherapy. Cancer, 34: 246–249.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, N. (1974) Post laryngectomy vocal rehabilitation: preliminary report of a one stage method using expired air and a valved prosthesis. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 88: 905–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izdebski, K., Ross, J. C, Lee, S., Martinez, C. A. (1987) Fungal colonization of tracheo-oesophageal voice prosthesis. Laryngoscope, 97: 594–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manni, J. J., Van den Broek, P., De Groot, M. A. H., Berends, E. (1984) Voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy with the Groningen prosthesis. Journal of Otolaryngology, 13: 5 333–336.Google ScholarPubMed
Manni, J. J., Van den Broek, P. (1990) Surgical and prosthesis related complications using the Groningen button voice prosthesis. Clinical Otolaryngology, 15: 515–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, A. J., O'Leary, I. K., Wight, R. G., Clegg, R. T. (1992) The Groningen valve voice prosthesis in Sheffield: A four year review. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 106: 154–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodu, B., Griffin, I. L., Gockerman, J. P. (1984) Oral candidiasis in cancer patients. South Medical Journal, 77: 312–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staffieri, M. (1980) New surgical approaches for speech rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. In: Surgical and prostheticapproaches to speech rehabilitation, pp. 77–117 Boston: G. K. Hall and Co. Shedd, D. P., Weinberg, B. (eds.)Google Scholar