Acceptance of a New Voice Prosthesis | 201 8 Regular voice prosthesis Twelve patients (80%) used a Vega as their regular VP, and three (20%) an ActiValve Light. The median device lifetime of the whole group their previous VP was 113 days (range 7-427). For the ActiValve-users this was median 94.5 days (mean 133, range 7-357) and for Vega 117 days (mean 119 days, range 12-427). The main reason for replacement was transprosthetic leakage (N=12). Acceptance of the PVHP After two weeks (short-term follow-up) thirteen (86.7%) participants accepted the PVHP, of which nine (60%) preferred the PVHP over their regular VP because of experiencing an improved voice and less effort to speak. Five patients experienced increased stickiness of the valve flap when using the PVHP compared to two patients with their regular VP, regardless of the regular type of VP used. None of the patients reported the daily use of lubricant as a negative aspect. Short-term follow-up None of the patients decided to replace the PVHP before the end of the short-term follow-up. Two patients (2/15: 13%) had periprosthetic leakage during these two weeks, which was the reason to not participate in the long-term study. One of them is familiar with a short device lifetime (previous device lifetimes were 7 and 15 days). Subjective voice quality and adverse events (study-specific) Seven of the fifteen patients (46%) reported a better voice quality with the PVHP, four (27%) with their regular VP and the remaining four (27%) noticed no difference. These seven patients (46%) also reported less effort to speak when using the PVHP, four (27%) when using their regular VP and four (27%) reported no differences. Two (13%) of the patients reported less stickiness of the valve flap with the PVHP (one ActiValve and one Vega User), three (20%) reported no difference between the VPs (one ActiValve and two Vega users) and ten (67%) reported less stickiness with their regular VP. Ten (67%) patients reported disadvantages of the PVHP, which were blocking of speech and stickiness of the valve flap (n=7, 46%), leakage (n=4, 27%) and, excessive mucus production (n=2, 13%). Net promotor score A median score of 7 was reached (range of 0-9). Ten (67%) participants would recommend the PVHP to other patients, and five (33%) would not.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw