de Maddalena H, Maassen M, Arold R, Ptok M, Zenner H P
Universitäts-HNO-Klinik Tübingen.
Laryngorhinootologie. 1992 Aug;71(8):416-22. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-997326.
Although the results of surgical rehabilitation by means of voice prostheses are on the average better than rehabilitation via oesophageal speech, the tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP)-technique has so far not been widely used in Germany. The majority of hospitals still prefer the "traditional" method of voice rehabilitation using oesophageal speech. The present prospective study was undertaken to compare the results of postlaryngectomy vocal rehabilitation, if patients were offered the surgical voice rehabilitation via voice prosthesis as an alternative to oesophageal speech. Taking into account all the patients who underwent laryngectomy from 1989 until 1990 in Tübingen, primary surgical voice rehabilitation was performed in 44 out of 54 patients (81.5%). Interestingly enough, 34 patients who underwent laryngectomy were able to perform communication via the telephone on the day of their discharge. Moreover, one-third of the laryngectomised patients showed a significant increase in speech intelligibility within the first six months after laryngectomy. 36 patients with laryngectomy were able to attain proficiency 6 months after surgery. In 12 patients the prosthesis had to be removed, since either phonation was impossible or patients successfully learned and preferred oesophageal speech. In conclusion, independent of the method of voice rehabilitation (prosthesis, electrolarynx, oesophageal speech), our results support the hypothesis that a voice rehabilitation regimen will yield a higher rehabilitation rate of patients if rehabilitation via surgical voice is offered as an alternative to learning the oesophageal voice. Therefore, it seems to be advisable that patients are allowed to have the choice between surgical rehabilitation and oesophageal speech restoration.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
尽管通过语音假体进行手术康复的效果平均而言优于食管语音康复,但到目前为止,气管食管穿刺(TEP)技术在德国尚未得到广泛应用。大多数医院仍然更喜欢使用食管语音进行语音康复的“传统”方法。本前瞻性研究旨在比较喉切除术后语音康复的结果,即如果为患者提供通过语音假体进行手术语音康复作为食管语音的替代方案。考虑到1989年至1990年在图宾根接受喉切除术的所有患者,54名患者中有44名(81.5%)接受了一期手术语音康复。有趣的是,34名接受喉切除术的患者在出院当天就能通过电话进行交流。此外,三分之一的喉切除患者在喉切除术后的头六个月内语音清晰度有显著提高。36名喉切除患者在术后6个月能够达到熟练程度。12名患者的假体不得不被移除,因为要么无法发声,要么患者成功学会并更喜欢食管语音。总之,无论语音康复方法(假体、电子喉、食管语音)如何,我们的结果支持这样一种假设,即如果提供手术语音康复作为学习食管语音的替代方案,语音康复方案将使患者获得更高的康复率。因此,让患者在手术康复和食管语音恢复之间进行选择似乎是明智的。(摘要截断于250字)