Aerodynamic Findings in Esophageal Voice | Complementary and Alternative Medicine | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Culton  GLGerwin  JM Current trends in laryngectomy rehabilitation: a survey of speech-language pathologists.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.1998;118:458-463.Google Scholar
2.
Motta  S Phonatory rehabilitation via esophageal voice and the laryngophone [in Italian].  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital.1992;12:237-243.Google Scholar
3.
Brugere  JLemann  MLaurent  ARodriguez  JPoint  D Réinertion et surveillance médicale du laryngectomisé.  In: Oto-Rhino-Laryngologie. Paris, France: Editions Techniques;1987:1-11.  Encyclopedie Médico-Chirurgical;vol 5. Google Scholar
4.
Singer  MIBlom  ED An endoscopic technique for restoration of voice after laryngectomy.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol.1980;89:529-533.Google Scholar
5.
Seinsch  W The voice prosthesis: an underutilized procedure in rehabilitation [in German]?  HNO.1993;41:595-596.Google Scholar
6.
Motta  G La riabilitazione vocale del laringectomizzato con protesi tracheo-esofagea [in Italian].  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital.1988;8(suppl 20):157-164.Google Scholar
7.
Kesteloot  KNolis  IHuygh  JDelaere  PFeenstra  L Costs and effects of tracheoesophageal speech compared with esophageal speech in laryngectomy patients.  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg.1994;48:387-394.Google Scholar
8.
Hillman  REWalsh  MJWolf  GTFischer  SGHong  WKfor the Research Speech-Language Pathologists, Department of Veterans Affairs Layngeal Cancer Study Group Functional outcomes following treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl.1998;172:1-27.Google Scholar
9.
Kischk  BTGross  M Comparative evaluation of the voice prosthesis after laryngectomy [in German].  HNO.1995;43:304-310.Google Scholar
10.
Max  LSteurs  Wde Bruyn  W Vocal capacities in esophageal and tracheosophageal speakers.  Laryngoscope.1996;106:93-96.Google Scholar
11.
Williams  SEWatson  JB Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomee groups.  Arch Otolaryngol.1985;111:216-219.Google Scholar
12.
Mahieu  HF Laryngectomee voice rehabilitation using the Groningen button voice prosthesis.  Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord).1987;108:113-122.Google Scholar
13.
Debruyne  FDelaere  PWouters  JUwents  P Acoustic analysis of tracheo-oesophageal speech.  J Laryngol Otol.1994;108:325-328.Google Scholar
14.
Rosique  MRamon  JLCampos  MCervantes  J Acoustic voice analysis in phonatory phistuloplasty for total laryngectomy [in Spanish].  Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp.1999;50:129-133.Google Scholar
15.
Nieboer  GLJSchutte  HK The Groningen button: results of in vivo measurements.  Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord).1987;108:121-122.Google Scholar
16.
Hirose  H Vocing distincion in esophageal speech.  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl.1996;524:56-63.Google Scholar
17.
Max  LDe Bruyn  WSteurs  W Intellegibility of oesophageal and tracheo-oesophageal speech: preliminary observations.  Eur J Disord Commun.1997;32:429-440.Google Scholar
18.
Daniilidis  INikolaou  AMarkou  CKotsani  A Voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy: voice prostheses or esophageal replacement voice [in German]?  Laryngorhinootologie.1998;77:89-92.Google Scholar
19.
Isman  KAO'Brien  CJ Videofluoroscopy of the pharyngoesophageal segment during tracheoesophageal and esophageal speech.  Head Neck.1992;14:352-358.Google Scholar
Original Article
June 2001

Aerodynamic Findings in Esophageal Voice

Author Affiliations

From the Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, Ateneo "Federico II," University of Naples, Naples, Italy (Dr Motta); and the Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy (Drs Galli and Di Rienzo). Dr Motta is now with the Institute of Otorhinolaryngology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127(6):700-704. doi:10.1001/archotol.127.6.700
Abstract

Objective  To define the perceptive and aerodynamic characteristics of esophageal voice in relation to different rehabilitation modalities.

Design  Cross-sectional study comparing perceptive and aerodynamic variables in 3 subject groups.

Setting  Referral center.

Subjects  A total of 19 subjects who underwent total laryngectomy were divided into groups A and B. Group A consisted of 13 subjects (who required speech therapy)—8 good speakers (subset A1 who were >80% intelligible) and 5 mediocre speakers (subset A2 who were <70% intelligible). Group B consisted of 6 subjects with a tracheoesophageal prosthesis (who were >90% intelligible).

Main Outcome Measures  Perceptive variables included phonatory pauses and stomal noise. Aerodynamic variables included maximum phonation time, phonatory flow, phonatory volume, postphonatory volume, intensity, and articulatory pressure.

Results  Phonatory pauses and stomal noise statistically differentiated group A from group B and good speakers from mediocre speakers. Phonation time, phonatory volume, and phonatory flow were statistically higher in group B subjects compared with group A subjects. Postphonatory volume was significantly higher in group A. Intraoral pressure and postphonatory volume were statistically higher in subset A2 subjects compared with subset A1 subjects while maximum phonation time was significantly higher in subset A1 subjects compared with subset A2 subjects.

Conclusions  In subset A1 subjects a positive ratio between phonatory volume and phonatory flow was maintained with an adequate phonation time. In subset A2 subjects a reduced phonatory volume was associated with a more rapid dispersion of phonatory flow, lower duration of phonation, and frequent pauses; stomal noise and consonant hyperarticulation worsened the voice performance in this group. In group B subjects the positive ratio between phonatory volume and phonatory flow represented the prerequisite of speech without frequent pauses.

×