Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:38:20.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In vitro comparison of the Groningen high resistance, Groningen low resistance and Provox speaking valves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

Judith M. Heaton  and
Andrew J. Parker
Judith M. Heaton
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield.
Andrew J. Parker*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield.
*
Mr A. J. Parker, Ch.M., F.R.C.S., Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper compares the physical parameters of the newer Groningen low resistance and Provox indwelling laryngectomy prostheses with the established and original Groningen device.

In vitro pressure/flow profiles were determined, using specially designed apparatus, in 44 standard Groningen high resistance (GHR), 37 Groningen low resistance (GLR) and 19 Provox tracheo-oesophageal prostheses prior to insertion. GHR valves had significantly higher forward opening pressures than both the newer valves and the GHR was significantly higher than the Provox (p<0.01: Mann-Whitney U-test). The mean forward resistance of GHR was significantly higher than that of both; the Provox valve was significantly lower than that of GLR (p<0.0001: Mann-Whitney U-test). This may be of relevance with respect to patient acceptability, voice quality and effective duration of valve action.

Keywords

LaryngectomyLarynxartificial
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 108 , Issue 4 , April 1994 , pp. 321 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1994

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

Blom, E. D., Singer, M. J. (1979) Surgical prosthetic approaches for postlaryngectomy rehabilitation. In Laryngectomy Rehabilitation. (Keith, R. L., ed.), College Hill Press, Harston, USA.Google Scholar
Hilgers, F. J. M., Schouwenberg, P. F. (1990) A new low-resistance, self-retaining prosthesis [Provox (TM)] for voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 100: 1202–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izdebski, K., Ross, J. C., Hetzler, D., Fontanesi, J., Krumpe, P. (1988) Speech restoration post-pharyngolaryngooesophagectomy using tracheogastric fistula. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 25: 33–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Manni, J. J., Van den Broek, P. (1990) Surgical and prosthesisrelated complications using the Groningen button voice prosthesis. Clinical Otolaryngology 15: 515–523.Google Scholar
Nieboer, G. L. J., Schutte, H. K. (1986) Aerodynamical properties of buttons and of button assisted esophageal speech. In Speech Restoration via Voice Prostheses. (Herrmann, I. F., ed.), Springer-Verlag, NY Inc., New York, pp 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nijdam, H. F., Annyas, A. A., Schutte, H. K., Leever, H. (1982) A new prosthesis for voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Archives of Otolaryngology 237: 27–33.Google Scholar
Parker, A. J., O'Leary, I. K., Wight, R. G., Clegg, R. T. (1992a) The Groningen valve voice prosthesis in Sheffield: a four-year review. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 106: 154–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, A. J., Stevens, J. C, Wickham, M. H., Clegg, R. T. (1992b) Characteristics of Groningen tracheo-oesophageal speaking valves prior to insertion and after removal for failure. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 106: 521–524.Google Scholar
Parker, A. J., Stevens, J. C., O'Leary, I. K., Clegg, R. T. (1992c) Speech production and duration of useful function in relation to pre-insertion pressure/flow parameters in the Groningen valve. Presented at the International Conference on Surgical Speech Rehabilitation, Charing Cross Hospital, London, September 1990.Google Scholar
Rosingh, H. J., Mahieu, H. F., Annyas, A. A., Schutte, H. K., Goorhuis-Brouwer, S. M. (1991) Voice rehabilitation following larynx extirpation using the Groningen button. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 135: 1315–1318 (Dutch).Google Scholar
Singer, M. I., Hamaker, R. C., Blom, E. D., Yoshida, G. Y. (1989) Applications of the voice prosthesis during laryngectomy. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 98: 921–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staffieri, M. (1980) New surgical approaches for speech rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. In Surgical and Prosthetic Approaches to Speech Rehabilitation. (Shedd, D. P., Weinberg, B., eds.), G. K. Hall & Co., Boston, pp 77–117.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