Tsai Tung-Lung, Chang Shyue-Yih, Guo Yuan-Ching, Chu Pen-Yuan
Department of Otolaryngology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
J Chin Med Assoc. 2003 Jun;66(6):360-3.
We compared 4 kinds of alaryngeal speech available in Taiwan in the performance of daily-life tasks. The speech methods included pneumatic device (Taiwan tube), electrolaryngeal speech, esophageal speech, and tracheoesophageal prosthesis.
Questionnaires covering various communication situations in daily-life tasks as well as subjective feelings about using alaryngeal speech were distributed to members of The Taiwan Laryngectomees' Association and were collected mostly in April 2000 in their annual meeting.
A total of 108 members responded to the questionnaire (totally 160 were questionnaires distributed). The mean age of respondents was 68.6 years, and the average time after surgery was 14.5 years. A pneumatic device was used by 58.8% of the responders, esophageal speech was used by 24.7%, an electrolarynx by 10.3%, and a tracheoesophageal prosthesis by 6.2%. No statistical difference was noted among patients using any of the 4 devices in terms of 13 communication tasks in daily life, except 4 questions such as the convenience of alaryngeal speech, embarrassment in face of strangers, the effort required to speak, and the discomfort in throat/neck/mouth when speaking. No statistical differences were noted among the 4 devices in terms of intelligibility.
All 4 alaryngeal speech methods can serve most of the communication functions in daily life tasks with no differences in intelligibility. Limitations in loudness and tone were common problems. It is crucial for surgeons to understand the performance of various alaryngeal speeches in daily life during rehabilitation consultations with patients.
我们比较了台湾现有的4种无喉语音在日常生活任务中的表现。语音方法包括气动装置（台湾管）、电子喉语音、食管语音和气管食管造瘘发音管。
向台湾喉切除患者协会成员发放涵盖日常生活任务中各种交流情况以及使用无喉语音主观感受的问卷，大部分问卷于2000年4月在其年会上收集。
共有108名成员回复了问卷（共发放160份问卷）。回复者的平均年龄为68.6岁，术后平均时间为14.5年。58.8%的回复者使用气动装置，24.7%使用食管语音，10.3%使用电子喉，6.2%使用气管食管造瘘发音管。在日常生活中的13项交流任务方面，使用这4种装置中的任何一种的患者之间未发现统计学差异，但在诸如无喉语音的便利性、面对陌生人时的尴尬、说话所需的努力以及说话时喉咙/颈部/口腔的不适等4个问题上存在差异。在清晰度方面，这4种装置之间未发现统计学差异。
所有4种无喉语音方法都能满足日常生活任务中的大多数交流功能，清晰度无差异。响度和音调受限是常见问题。在与患者进行康复咨询时，外科医生了解各种无喉语音在日常生活中的表现至关重要。
