Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Oral Oncol. 2011 Sep;47(9):895-9. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.04.004. Epub 2011 Jul 5.
To prospectively study patients' preference for and the lifetime of the Groningen Ultra Low Resistance (GULR) and Provox2 tracheo-esophageal shunt prosthesis (TESP, plural TESPs) in post-laryngectomy patients. Eighty post-laryngectomy patients were included in 4 oncological centers in the Netherlands. We used a repeated measures design study with 4 randomized groups in a partial cross-over design using 3 consecutive TESPs (3 intervals) in different orders. (Group 1: GULR-GULR-GULR; Group 2: GULR-GULR-Provox2; Group 3: Provox2-Provox2-GULR; and Group 4: Provox2- Provox2-Provox2). Replacement dates and reasons for replacement were monitored with questionnaires as were patients' preferences for GULR or Provox2. A great variability of lifetime within and between groups was seen. Mean lifetimes found (all groups and intervals added) were 106.2 and 102.7 days, and median lifetimes were 76 and 65 days for GULR and Provox2, respectively. Lifetime showed no significant differences between groups, intervals, and TESP types. Many patients dropped out due to reasons having to do with GULR-characteristics (n=21). The main dropout reason was "high phonating resistance (HPR)" (57.1%). Only 10 patients preferred GULR. A significantly larger number of patients (n=39, 79.6%) preferred Provox2 either by choice or by dropping out due to GULR-characteristics (P<0.001). The main replacement reasons were "leakage though TESP" (GULR 59.1%, Provox2 52.1%) and HPR (GULR 15.9%, Provox2 12.7%). No significant differences in lifetime between GULR and Provox2 were found. The patients' preference for Provox2 was significant (P<0.001). Patients' preference was a more important outcome measurement in TESP effectiveness than device lifetime.
前瞻性研究喉切除术后患者对 Groningen Ultra Low Resistance(GULR)和 Provox2 气管食管分流假体(TESP,复数 TESPs)的偏好以及 TESP 的使用寿命。80 例喉切除术后患者纳入荷兰 4 家肿瘤中心。我们使用重复测量设计研究,采用部分交叉设计,4 个随机分组,使用 3 个连续 TESP(3 个间隔)以不同的顺序。(第 1 组:GULR-GULR-GULR;第 2 组:GULR-GULR-Provox2;第 3 组:Provox2-Provox2-GULR;第 4 组:Provox2-Provox2-Provox2)。通过问卷调查监测更换日期和更换原因,以及患者对 GULR 或 Provox2 的偏好。在组内和组间均观察到使用寿命的极大变异性。发现的平均使用寿命(所有组和间隔相加)分别为 GULR 和 Provox2 的 106.2 和 102.7 天,中位使用寿命分别为 76 和 65 天。组间、间隔和 TESP 类型之间的使用寿命无显著差异。由于与 GULR 特性有关的原因(n=21),许多患者退出研究。主要退出原因是“高发声阻力(HPR)”(57.1%)。只有 10 名患者更喜欢 GULR。明显更多的患者(n=39,79.6%)更喜欢 Provox2,要么是因为选择,要么是因为 GULR 特性而退出(P<0.001)。主要更换原因是“TESP 泄漏”(GULR 59.1%,Provox2 52.1%)和 HPR(GULR 15.9%,Provox2 12.7%)。GULR 和 Provox2 之间的使用寿命无显著差异。患者对 Provox2 的偏好具有统计学意义(P<0.001)。患者的偏好是 TESP 有效性的比设备使用寿命更重要的结果测量。