Next Article in Journal
Technical Efficiency of Mexico’s Public Health System in the Delivery of Obstetric Care, during 2012–2018
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of Workload Excess on Quality of Work Life in Third-Level Healthcare Workers: A Structural Equation Modeling Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/healthcare12060652
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Evidence-Based Recommendations in Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation

by
Miguel Mayo-Yáñez
1,2,*,
Alejandro Klein-Rodríguez
2,3,
Aldán López-Eiroa
2,4,
Irma Cabo-Varela
1,2,
Raquel Rivera-Rivera
5 and
Pablo Parente-Arias
1,2
1
Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña (CHUAC), 15006 A Coruña, Spain
2
Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Research Group, Institute of Biomedical Research of A Coruña, (INIBIC), Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña (CHUAC), Universidade da Coruña (UDC), 15006 A Coruña, Spain
3
Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Hospital Público da Mariña, 27880 Lugo, Spain
4
Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ferrol (CHUF), 15405 Ferrol, Spain
5
Atos Medical Clinical Department, Atos Medical Spain S.L., 08007 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2024, 12(6), 652; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12060652
Submission received: 11 December 2023 / Revised: 28 January 2024 / Accepted: 29 February 2024 / Published: 14 March 2024
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Head and neck cancer, the seventh most common cancer worldwide, often affects the larynx, with a higher incidence in men. Total laryngectomy, a common treatment, results in the loss of phonation, and tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation is the current rehabilitation method of choice. Despite ongoing debates regarding the timing of tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP), a crucial procedure for voice prosthesis placement, the secondary puncture continues to be the preferred choice in the majority of cases. This underscores the persistent controversy and the absence of consensus in this field. The aim of this manuscript was to define evidence-based recommendations regarding the procedure of primary TEP with voice prosthesis placement, establish the conditions and requirements for performing primary TEP, determine the indications and contraindications of primary TEP, as well as to define the complications and management of primary TEP. A total of 19 statements were formulated, with 78.95% of them having a Level of Evidence 4 and a Grade of Recommendation C. There is not sufficient evidence comparing the outcomes of primary TEP versus secondary TEP. Future studies with robust methodologies are needed to clarify the role of primary and secondary TEP in the rehabilitation of patients undergoing total laryngectomy.

1. Introduction

Head and neck cancer is the seventh most common cancer worldwide [1], with the larynx being the most common site in Europe, with an incidence of 4.6/100,000 [2]. This type of cancer is more prevalent in men than in women, with a ratio of 10:1, although in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of cases in women due to the rise in tobacco and alcohol consumption [3]. Generally, laryngeal cancer tends to occur more frequently between the sixth and seventh decades of life.
The therapeutic approach to laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma is multidisciplinary and involves various treatment modalities, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy, used individually or in combination, depending on the tumor stage [4]. In advanced stages of the disease, total laryngectomy may be necessary, either as the primary treatment option or as a salvage procedure after prior oncological medical treatment. This intervention involves the complete removal of the larynx and the creation of a permanent respiratory stoma, resulting in the loss of the physiological ability for phonation, which is the most significant sequel of total laryngectomy.
Since the first laryngectomies described 150 years ago [5], one of the most important goals of research in this field has been to compensate for this loss, improving patient support and comprehensive care [6,7,8,9]. Tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation is the current method of rehabilitation of choice or gold standard therapy [10], with a 95% long-term success rate and vocal quality ranging from fair to excellent in 88% of cases [9,11]. This rehabilitation modality provides better outcomes in terms of quality of life, vocal quality, fundamental frequency, maximum phonation time, and intensity compared to esophageal voice rehabilitation [6,12,13,14]. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated good perception of vocal quality and acceptance by the patient compared to laryngeal voice rehabilitation in healthy patients [15].
The placement of a voice prosthesis involves performing a tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP), a surgical procedure that can be carried out during laryngectomy (after the removal of the larynx and before pharyngeal closure), known as primary TEP, or it can be delayed and performed after the patient has recovered from surgery, in which case it is referred to as secondary TEP. The choice of timing for performing the TEP and, consequently, the placement of the prosthesis is a matter of debate. It is estimated that primary TEP is performed in only 7.3% of patients undergoing total laryngectomy [16]. Despite studies associating primary TEP with the early recovery of the patient’s communicative capacity compared to secondary TEP [17], there is controversy regarding the indications, risks, and complications associated with each of these procedures [18]. This lack of consensus may be one of the reasons why secondary TEP continues to be the preferred option in the majority of cases (77.3%) when tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation is proposed [19].
The development of these evidence-based recommendations aims to provide the necessary tools to professionals involved in patient selection and procedure execution to enhance the quality of life and care for patients undergoing total laryngectomy.

2. Methods

This manuscript is aimed at healthcare professionals involved in the diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, or follow-up of laryngectomized patients who are or could be users of voice prostheses: otorhinolaryngology specialists (physicians and residents), speech therapists, nursing staff, and other specialists. The objective is, through a systematic literature review, to define evidence-based recommendations regarding the procedure of primary TEP with voice prosthesis placement, establish the conditions and requirements for performing primary TEP, determine the indications and contraindications of primary TEP, as well as to define the complications and management of primary TEP.
The recommendations should be interpreted in the context of the individual needs and preferences of each patient within the specific healthcare setting of each case.
Given the continuous growth of knowledge and technological development, the recommendations will undergo periodic review from the moment of their publication.
The development process of this manuscript adhered to the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) guidelines [20]. To ensure the evidence-based support for the recommendations, a rapid systematic review was conducted following the recommended procedures (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024417529).

2.1. Search and Systematic Review

Evidence-based medicine methodologies were employed, following the PRISMA-RR, an extension to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) for rapid reviews and the following PICO framework [21,22,23]:
-
Participants: Patients undergoing total laryngectomy.
-
Intervention: Primary tracheoesophageal puncture.
-
Comparison: Secondary tracheoesophageal puncture.
-
Outcome/Results: Vocal outcomes, quality of life, and complications.
The search systematics were independently conducted by three of the authors (A.K.R; A.L.E; M.M.Y). Studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Science Citation Index, and The Cochrane Library between 1 January 1980 and 1 January 2023 were included. The search terms used were voice prosthesis; total laryngectomy; tracheoesophageal puncture. The inclusion criteria considered randomized controlled trials, observational studies, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews published in English, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. Case reports, conference communications, or gray literature were not included (Figure 1). The recommendations and justifications were initially drafted and critically reviewed by the 3 previously mentioned authors. A mini-Delphi method with 2 meetings was used to define the recommendations. The recommendations were sent to the entire working group, who responded anonymously. In the first meeting, the recommendations with the proposed modifications were presented. In an open debate format, questions and other modifications were formulated. In the second meeting, the final points were reviewed and decided by consensus among the authors group. The group of authors consisted of 4 otolaryngologists and head and neck surgeons with clinical and scientific expertise in oncologic surgery, rehabilitation, and the use of voice prostheses. Additionally, 2 expert speech therapists in tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation were part of the team.

2.2. Grading of Evidence and Recommendations

The Oxford Levels of Evidence system (2011, https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence, accessed on 7 September 2023) was utilized for the grading of evidence and recommendations [25]. Recommendations were formulated based on the review and analysis of the most recent research on primary TEP found. During the formulation of recommendations for the management of primary TEP, all possible benefits, side effects, and risks were considered and clearly described with bibliographic references and supporting data. The nomenclature used to formulate the recommendations was (Level of Evidence, Grade of Recommendation). For example, (4, C).

2.3. Risk of Bias Analysis

Given the nature and characteristics of the studies obtained, the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies—of Exposure (ROBINS-E) tool was used (Supplementary Figure S1a,b). This tool provides a structured approach to assessing the risk of bias in observational epidemiological studies [26]. In cases where there was a control group compared to the intervention or in clinical trials, the ROBINS-I or RoB-2 tool was used depending on the type of study (Figure S2a,b) [27,28].

2.4. Recommendations Structure

In order to formulate recommendations that encompass the entire care process for primary TEP, the document was divided into the following sections:
  • Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture.
    ▪
    Complementary Procedures to Facilitate Primary TEP and Voice Prosthesis Care.
  • Primary TEP Indications.
  • Primary TEP Contraindications.
  • Benefits of Primary TEP over Secondary TEP.
    ▪
    For the Patient.
    ▪
    For the Professional.
    ▪
    For the Healthcare System.
  • Most Common Complications Related to Primary TEP.
    ▪
    Leakage Around the Voice Prosthesis or Periprosthetic.
    ▪
    TEP-Related Postoperative Infection.
    ▪
    Stoma Stenosis.
  • Influence of Primary TEP on the Occurrence of Postoperative Pharyngocutaneous Fistula.

3. Evidence-Based Recommendations

The different aspects found in the literature through the conducted systematic review are discussed. The formulated statements can be found collectively in Supplementary Table S1.

3.1. Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture

Primary TEP is a surgical technique involving the creation of a tracheoesophageal fistula and the placement of a voice prosthesis (VP) during the same surgical procedure as total laryngectomy [29] (Supplementary Video S1). It is a safe and standardized procedure performed after the laryngeal resection is completed and before the closure of the pharyngeal mucosa (Video S1). Currently, for the safe, effective, and rapid execution of the procedure and voice prosthesis placement, it is recommended to use a kit marketed by the different manufacturing companies [30,31,32]. These insertion kits contain the sterile material necessary to perform the procedure. This approach aims to standardize the technique, make it reproducible, and minimize the risks of complications, regardless of the brand used (4, C) [33,34]. To date, there are no studies comparing one kit to another.

Complementary Procedures to Facilitate the Primary TEP and VP Care

There are several surgical maneuvers that facilitate patient rehabilitation, reduce postoperative complications, and support postoperative VP and heat and moisture exchanger (HME) therapy management (Table 1) [35,36]. The most studied, and for which their implementation is recommended whenever possible, are detailed below.
The first one is related to the anchoring of the trachea and the formation of the stoma. Suturing the trachea laterally to the musculature prevents stoma stenosis or the stoma taking on an oval shape with a vertical longer axis closing the VP [37,38,39]. It is a simple technique, without described complications, and is reproducible. Other techniques have been described over the years, with none proving to be superior or undergoing comparative studies (4, C).
An excessively wide tracheostoma hinders manual closure for phonation or the use of HME adhesives [40]. It is recommended to adjust the size of the tracheostoma (1.5–2 cm) with a bevel tracheal incision. This provides a good exposure of the TEP, assists in the care of the VP, and facilitates its changes (4, C).
The cricopharyngeal muscle is located superiorly to the tracheoesophageal fistula and can impede phonation and swallowing if it undergoes hyperfunction [41]. Performed in nearly half of patients [16], a cricopharyngeal myotomy reduces pressure on the upper esophageal sphincter during swallowing or phonation [42]. It is considered a recommended and safe surgical maneuver for experienced professionals, although not without complications [43,44,45] (4, C).
Finally, the section of the medial portion of both sternocleidomastoid muscles at their distal end promotes flattening of the tracheostoma, facilitates VP management, and enhances adherence to adhesives and HME. It is a simple, quick, and safe procedure [46,47,48] (4, C).

3.2. Primary TEP Indications

There is no scientific evidence to establish absolute indications for the performance of primary TEP at present (Table 2) [7,49]. Given the potential benefits of primary TEP, the possibility of performing primary TEP should be considered in every patient undergoing total laryngectomy [50]. A personalized assessment of each surgical situation is necessary when deciding the timing of TEP [50,51,52,53], with a positive preoperative multidisciplinary and multidimensional assessment (speech therapy, psychology, otorhinolaryngology, social worker’s assistant) [16,54,55,56] (3b, B). The relative indications for primary TEP could be divided according to local or general factors.
Considering local factors, primary TEP can be performed in patients with either tumor-related or non-tumor-related pathologies requiring total laryngectomy [57] (4, C). Additionally, primary TEP can be performed in tumors with extensive resections and reconstructions of the pharyngoesophageal segment, using both pedicled and free flaps [16,51,58,59,60,61,62] (4, C). In cases of surgical salvage after chemoradiotherapy (CRT), primary TEP has not been shown to significantly increase complications (4, C). Nevertheless, some studies suggest a higher incidence of complications with salvage surgery and not with TEP and VP placement, especially after radiotherapy [51,52,54,60,63].
Regarding general factors, a good overall patient condition without incapacitating comorbidities is required [64,65]. Specifically, there should be no advanced lung pathology, as minimal lung volumes and capacities are necessary to expel the airflow required for voice prosthesis phonation [58,60] (4, C). The necessary physical capacity and manual coordination to effectively occlude the stoma [54,55,58] are also crucial (4, C). Additionally, a minimum level of visual capacity is needed for prosthesis care if there is no adequate social or family support [54,58] (4, C). Patient motivation for prosthesis management and self-care is fundamental for rehabilitative success [55,56,59,64,66,67,68] (3a, B), and having good social/family support is helpful [16,54,69] (3a, B).
Finally, the experience of the hospital center in the technique and having the necessary resources for follow-up, both from the healthcare system and the patient, is key to rehabilitative success [16,54,64,65,70] (2b, C).

3.3. Primary TEP Contraindications

There are no absolute contraindications for primary TEP at present [7,49]. Relative contraindications for primary TEP can also be divided based on local or general factors and are complementary to the indications previously mentioned (Table 3).
Among local factors, extensive lingual or mandibular involvement requiring large resections leads to ankyloglossia or trismus after treatment. This inability to articulate words may be considered a contraindication for primary tracheoesophageal puncture. [54] (4, C). Previous treatment with CRT, as mentioned earlier, does not significantly increase the incidence of complications associated with primary TEP [51,71,72]. Nevertheless, in selected cases with a high risk of postoperative complications, where the neck has previously received radiation therapy (presence of radionecrosis or generalized fibrosis), or where severe postoperative medical–surgical complications are anticipated, it may be preferable to perform secondary TEP [52,54,60,73] (4, C).
Among the general factors to consider with potential complications is the overall poor health of the patient, with incapacitating comorbidities preventing proper rehabilitation. The presence of distant metastasis without the possibility of curative treatment or a reduced life expectancy is also a factor to consider in the choice of primary TEP. Advanced lung disease, physical incapacity (poor manual and visual coordination), lack of motivation on the part of the patient [74], lack of social/family support [56,69,75], lack of resources/experience in the hospital center, or difficult access to healthcare for the patient are other factors that could influence the decision to undergo TEP (4, C).

3.4. Benefits of Primary TEP over Secondary TEP

Primary TEP involves a single surgery that avoids the need for a new admission and postoperative complications associated with secondary TEP [16,17,52,62,74] (4, C). The studies indicate that the placement of the VP during surgery is related to significantly fewer early device changes (1.4 vs. 2), fewer VP changes due to resizing (8% vs. 80%), longer durations before the initial VP change (159.7 vs. 24.5 days), an earlier start to voice rehabilitation (13.2 vs. 17.6 days), a shorter hospital stay (17.2 vs. 24.5 days), and cost savings of USD 559.83 per person.
Therefore, the performance of primary TEP entails a series of benefits that can be divided into three groups: for the patient, for the professional, and for the healthcare system.

3.4.1. For the Patient

Primary TEP does not appear to entail greater surgical complications or higher morbidity than secondary TEP [51,76,77] (4, C). These statements are based on observational studies and should be taken with caution.
Primary TEP seems to improve Voice-Related Quality of Life [6,12,13,69] (4, C) thanks to the following:
  • Earlier communication with primary TEP compared to secondary TEP [17,49,52,54,55,59,71,78] (4, C).
  • The early initiation of rehabilitation and achieving proper phonation before receiving supplementary RT treatment if necessary [79,80,81] (4, C). Rehabilitation can begin around two weeks (10–14th day) after surgery if there are no complications associated with the procedure [52,82,83] (4, C). The time to achieve fluent phonation after a total laryngectomy is around 56 days in the case of primary TEP and 200 days in the case of secondary TEP, respectively [61].
  • Quicker familiarization with the prosthesis, phonation, and care compared to secondary TEP [73].
  • The results on the Harrison–Robillard-Schultz Tracheoesophageal Rating Scale do not differ between primary and secondary TEP, with scores of >11 in both cases [84,85] (4, C).
  • Primary TEP is associated with an earlier return to work for active workers [86] (4, C).
Regarding postoperative recovery, the primary TEP technique is associated with greater plasticity of the pharyngoesophageal sphincter, facilitating better short- and long-term voice outcomes [52,59,74] (4, C). Likewise, the primary TEP technique supposes better stabilization and earlier healing of the tracheoesophageal fistula [16,17,62,87] (4, C).

3.4.2. For the Professional

Primary TEP is associated with less frequent prosthesis replacements, the longer duration of the first prosthesis compared to a VP of secondary TEP [17,33,51] (4, C), a reduced frequency of follow-up consultations [33,59] (4, C), and a lower risk of esophageal perforation, avoiding rigid esophagoscopy in laryngectomized patients who may have esophageal stenosis.
Pharyngeal stenosis associated with RT can complicate the secondary puncture technique and phonatory rehabilitation [16,59] (4, C). The primary TEP technique supposes better accessibility and surgical ease in creating the fistula in a more natural and horizontal position, which can subsequently facilitate VP replacements [32,33] (4, C). As mentioned previously, the primary TEP technique adds the possibility of performing complementary surgical techniques to facilitate phonation or VP replacement [16,17,33,62] (4, C).

3.4.3. For the Healthcare System (4, C)

The performance of a single procedure implies the avoidance of a new admission, intervention, and postoperative complications [16,33]. The primary TEP seems to reduce the need for prosthesis replacements and lower the requirement for follow-up consultations and rehabilitation sessions [17], with consequent cost savings for the system [51].

3.5. Most Common Complications Related to Primary TEP

The most common complications associated with primary TEP appear to be leakage around the prosthesis, postoperative infection, and stoma stenosis, with a wide variability among the analyzed series [52,73,88] (Table 4). In a systematic review and meta-analysis, it was observed that there were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of postoperative infection (primary TEP: 9.1% vs. secondary TEP: 3.9%) or stoma stenosis (primary TEP: 8.5% vs. secondary TEP: 4.5%) between patients in both groups. However, statistically significant differences were found in the percentage of leakage around the prosthesis, with a 10% reduction in the case of secondary puncture (primary TEP: 22.5% vs. secondary TEP: 6.5%) [16,88]. Given the heterogeneity of the data, a causal relationship between primary TEP and an increase in the presentation of this type of complication cannot currently be established [52,73,88].

3.5.1. Leakage around the VP or Periprosthetic

Leakage around the VP or periprosthetic is the most frequent complication after performing a primary TEP [87]. Due to this, there is an aspiration of saliva, liquids, or food around the prosthesis, which increases the risk of pneumonia and respiratory complications [89,90]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that the appearance of this type of complication is related to an advanced nodal stage, postoperative pharyngeal stenosis, the presence of pharyngoesophageal reflux, postoperative radiation therapy, or locoregional recurrence or metastatic cancer after laryngectomy [67,87,90].
The management of this complication is usually conservative [35,91,92,93] (4, C). Initially, techniques such as adjusting the size of the prosthesis or placing a silicone ring around the tracheal face of the prosthesis are used [94,95]. Replacement with a double-flanged prosthesis (Provox® Vega™ XtraSeal™) has shown a reduction in periprosthetic leakage (9.62% with XtraSeal vs. 22.43% in the control group) and has been shown to be a cost-effective procedure in the long term [63,96,97] (3a, B). The Blom-Singer large oesophageal and tracheal flange VP is also a useful solution for the management of periprosthetic leakage, ensuring similar voice quality and an identical lifespan to that of other voice prostheses [95] (4, C).
Other frequently used techniques include temporary removal of the VP, circular suture of the fistula, or tissue augmentation with the injection around the fistula of different materials (collagen, bioplastics, autologous fat, hyaluronic acid…). These methods aim to reduce the diameter of the fistula [87,98] (4, C). Closing the tracheoesophageal fistula by placing a silicone prosthesis or surgically are alternatives when conservative options have failed [99]. These techniques achieve control of leakage but impair phonation, with a negative impact on patients’ quality of life [100,101] (4, C).

3.5.2. TEP-Related Postoperative Infection (4, C)

Peristomal infection is the most frequent infection, followed by cervical cellulitis. There are cases of deep cervical infections, abscesses, infections in the cervical spine, or complications such as mediastinitis, but there is no evidence that they are associated with primary TEP to a greater extent than with secondary. There appears to be a greater tendency for local infection in patients undergoing primary TEP compared to those who do not undergo any procedure [52,102,103]. The management of these complications is usually conservative, with appropriate antibiotic therapy and admission if necessary [89,100]. Primary TEP does not negatively affect the incidence of postoperative medical complications and the duration of hospitalization [102].

3.5.3. Stoma Stenosis (4, C)

There is weak evidence suggesting that primary TEP may be associated with stoma stenosis [103]. This could be related to an increased risk of postoperative local infection. A stenosed tracheostoma can complicate the maintenance of the voice prosthesis and potential replacements. To prevent this, some recommendations during the laryngotracheoplasty have been presented earlier in this document. In the case of stoma stenosis, the treatment is surgical and involves performing a stomaplasty [104].

3.6. Influence of Primary TEP on the Occurrence of Postoperative Pharyngocutaneous Fistula

There is some controversy regarding the influence of primary TEP on the occurrence of postoperative pharyngocutaneous fistula after total laryngectomy [73,103] (Table 5). In the majority of studies conducted, statistically significant differences were not found between the increased incidence of pharyngocutaneous fistula and primary TEP [19,105,106,107,108,109], nor in more recent meta-analyses [52,88] (4, C).

4. Limitations

It is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations of these recommendations, as the majority of the included studies exhibit a limited level of quality. The predominant evidence is characterized by a low level (4), which may impact the robustness of the formulated recommendations. Despite the abundance of articles on voice prostheses, few specifically evaluate primary puncture versus secondary puncture. Most of them are observational, retrospective, and have a limited sample size.
Similarly, an important aspect lacking in studies on tracheoesophageal VP is the uniformity of care for patients with TEP. This aspect has been highlighted by various working groups previously [83,91,92,110]. There are multiple factors that can affect TEPs which are not considered in the selected studies, such as the location of the institution where the study is conducted, economic level, access to healthcare, cultural level, etc. [111].
Given the lack of high-quality studies, the interpretation of results and the generalization of conclusions may be subject to a higher degree of uncertainty. The need for future research with more rigorous designs and robust methodologies is evident to strengthen the evidence base and enhance the validity of the recommendations provided.

5. Conclusions

This manuscript defines the surgical protocol for primary TEP and voice prosthesis placement. It also establishes recommendations for primary TEP (indications, contraindications, initiation of phonation, and complications) based on current scientific evidence. The recommendations should be interpreted in the context of the individual needs and preferences of each patient within the specific healthcare setting of each case.
A total of 19 statements were formulated, with 78.95% of them having a Level of Evidence of 4 and a Grade of Recommendation of C. Only four statements reached a Grade of Recommendation of B, while two had a 2b evidence level and 2 had a 3b evidence level.
There is not sufficient evidence comparing the outcomes of primary TEP versus secondary TEP. Future studies with robust methodologies are needed to clarify the role of primary and secondary TEP in the rehabilitation of patients undergoing total laryngectomy.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare12060652/s1, Video S1: Primary TEP procedure; Figure S1: Risk of bias assessment ROBINS-E tool; Figure S2: Risk of bias assessment ROBINS-I/Rob-2 tool. Table S1: Summary of statements.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.-Y. and P.P.-A.; methodology, M.M.-Y., P.P.-A. and A.K.-R.; validation, all the authors; formal analysis, all the authors; investigation, all the authors; data curation, M.M.-Y., A.K.-R. and A.L.-E.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.-Y., A.K.-R. and A.L.-E.; writing—review and editing, all the authors; visualization, P.P.-A.; supervision, M.M.-Y. and P.P.-A.; project administration, M.M.-Y., P.P.-A. and R.R.-R.; funding acquisition, P.P.-A. and R.R.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Atos Medical (https://www.atosmedical.com/). The Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Research Group affiliated with the INIBIC research institute received the funding for the execution of this investigation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable, as this work did not involve humans or animals in its development. This document of evidence-based recommendations has obtained the scientific endorsement of the Sociedad Española de Otorrinolaringología—Cirugía de Cabeza y Cuello (SEORL-CCC; https://seorl.net/).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article or Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in the development of this manuscript. None of the authors individually or personally received economic incentives for the completion of this project. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. The authors are not employees of Atos Medical or other companies involved in voice prosthesis rehabilitation. R.R.-R. is a speech therapist in charge of the rehabilitation of laryngectomized patients and an employee of Atos Medical.

References

  1. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gatta, G.; Capocaccia, R.; Botta, L.; Mallone, S.; De Angelis, R.; Ardanaz, E.; Comber, H.; Dimitrova, N.; Leinonen, M.K.; Siesling, S.; et al. Burden and Centralised Treatment in Europe of Rare Tumours: Results of RARECAREnet-a Population-Based Study. Lancet Oncol. 2017, 18, 1022–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. de Souza, D.L.B.; Pérez, M.M.B.; Curado, M.P. Gender Differences in the Incidence of Laryngeal and Hypopharyngeal Cancers in Spain. Cancer Epidemiol. 2011, 35, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Machiels, J.-P.; René Leemans, C.; Golusinski, W.; Grau, C.; Licitra, L.; Gregoire, V. EHNS Executive Board, ESMO Guidelines Committee, ESTRO Executive Board Reprint of “Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity, Larynx, Oropharynx and Hypopharynx: EHNS-ESMO-ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-Up”. Oral. Oncol. 2021, 113, 105042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Stell, P.M. The First Laryngectomy. J. Laryngol. Otol. 1975, 89, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Maniaci, A.; La Mantia, I.; Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Chiesa-Estomba, C.M.; Lechien, J.R.; Iannella, G.; Locatello, L.G.; Mannelli, G.; Trecca, E.M.C.; Barillari, M.R.; et al. Vocal Rehabilitation and Quality of Life after Total Laryngectomy: State-of-the-Art and Systematic Review. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 587–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Díaz de Cerio Canduela, P.; Arán González, I.; Barberá Durban, R.; Sistiaga Suárez, A.; Tobed Secall, M.; Parente Arias, P.L. Rehabilitación del paciente laringectomizado. Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Otorrinolaringología y Cirugía de Cabeza y Cuello. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Española 2019, 70, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sánchez-Gómez, S.; Tena-García, B.; Martín Jiménez, D.I.; Álvarez Cendrero, M.; Cuello Entrena, S.; López González, N.; Vizcarra Melgar, J.; Molina-Fernández, E.; Tabernero Gallego, R.; Lorente Guerrero, J.; et al. Unidad de Atención al Paciente Traqueostomizado. Una solución innovadora desde Otorrinolaringología con carácter transversal para el hospital. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Española 2023, 74, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brown, D.H.; Hilgers, F.J.M.; Irish, J.C.; Balm, A.J.M. Postlaryngectomy Voice Rehabilitation: State of the Art at the Millennium. World J. Surg. 2003, 27, 824–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sparks, F.; Coffey, M.; Dipper, L.; Morgan, S.; Hilari, K. Tracheoesophageal Voice Therapy in Postlaryngectomy Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review. J. Voice 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Blom, E.D. Tracheoesophageal Voice Restoration: Origin—Evolution—State-of-the-Art. Folia Phoniatr. Logop. 2000, 52, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Maniaci, A.; Lechien, J.R.; Caruso, S.; Nocera, F.; Ferlito, S.; Iannella, G.; Grillo, C.M.; Magliulo, G.; Pace, A.; Vicini, C.; et al. Quality of Life after Total LaryngectomyVoice-Related Quality of Life After Total Laryngectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Voice 2021, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cocuzza, S.; Maniaci, A.; Grillo, C.; Ferlito, S.; Spinato, G.; Coco, S.; Merlino, F.; Stilo, G.; Santoro, G.P.; Iannella, G.; et al. Voice-Related Quality of Life in Post-Laryngectomy Rehabilitation: Tracheoesophageal Fistula’s Wellness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. van Sluis, K.E.; van der Molen, L.; van Son, R.J.J.H.; Hilgers, F.J.M.; Bhairosing, P.A.; van den Brekel, M.W.M. Objective and Subjective Voice Outcomes after Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2018, 275, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Klein-Rodríguez, A.; Cabo-Varela, I.; Vázquez de la Iglesia, F. Acoustic Characterization of the Voice With a Tracheoesophageal Speech in Laryngectomized Patients. Similarities and Differences With the Laryngeal Voice. J. Voice 2023, 37, 144.e9–144.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sethi, R.K.V.; Deschler, D.G. National Trends in Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture after Total Laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 2018, 128, 2320–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Robinson, R.A.; Simms, V.A.; Ward, E.C.; Barnhart, M.K.; Chandler, S.J.; Smee, R.I. Total Laryngectomy with Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture: Intraoperative versus Delayed Voice Prosthesis Placement. Head Neck 2017, 39, 1138–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boyd, C.; Houghton, J.; Harrold, L.; Bond, J.; Garnett, J.D.; Kraft, S. Assessment of Factors Impacting Long-Term Utilization of Tracheoesophageal Speech Among Laryngectomees. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2021, 130, 802–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. El Shatanofy, M.; Youner, E.; Shaver, T.B.; Chaudhry, T.; Goodman, J. A NSQIP Study Comparing Surgical Outcomes between Primary and Non-Primary TEPs after Total Laryngectomy. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2023, 45, 104026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brouwers, M.C.; Kho, M.E.; Browman, G.P.; Burgers, J.S.; Cluzeau, F.; Feder, G.; Fervers, B.; Graham, I.D.; Grimshaw, J.; Hanna, S.E.; et al. AGREE II: Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care. Can. Med. Assoc. J. CMAJ 2010, 182, E839–E842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. O’Sullivan, D.; Wilk, S.; Michalowski, W.; Farion, K. Using PICO to Align Medical Evidence with MDs Decision Making Models. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2013, 192, 1057. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Stevens, A.; Garritty, C.; Hersi, M.; Moher, D. Developing PRISMA-RR, a Reporting Guideline for Rapid Reviews of Primary Studies (Protocol). Equat. Netw. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Haddaway, N.R.; Page, M.J.; Pritchard, C.C.; McGuinness, L.A. PRISMA2020: An R Package and Shiny App for Producing PRISMA 2020-Compliant Flow Diagrams, with Interactivity for Optimised Digital Transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2022, 18, e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Howick, J.; Chalmers, I.; Glasziou, P.; Greenhalgh, T.; Heneghan, C.; Liberati, A.; Moschetti, I.; Phillips, B.; Thornton, H. Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (Background Document); Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Oxford, UK, 2011; Available online: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence (accessed on 13 February 2021).
  26. ROBINS-E Development Group. Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies—Of Exposure (ROBINS-E). Launch version, 20 June 2023. Available online: https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robins-e-tool (accessed on 19 September 2023).
  27. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sterne, J.A.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Leone, C.A.; Capasso, P.; Russo, G. Proposal for a New Nomenclature of Tracheo-Oesophageal Puncture: A Different Perspective. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2020, 40, 238–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Provox® VegaTM Puncture Set—Atos Medical. Available online: https://www.atosmedical.us/product/provox-vega-puncture-set (accessed on 8 December 2023).
  31. Blom-Singer Voice Prosthesis Placement Surgical Kit. Available online: https://www.inhealth.com/firstfit-surgical-kit (accessed on 8 December 2023).
  32. Hilgers, F.J.M.; Lorenz, K.J.; Maier, H.; Meeuwis, C.A.; Kerrebijn, J.D.F.; Poorten, V.V.; Vinck, A.S.; Quer, M.; van den Brekel, M.W.M. Development and (Pre-) Clinical Assessment of a Novel Surgical Tool for Primary and Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture with Immediate Voice Prosthesis Insertion, the Provox Vega Puncture Set. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2013, 270, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Deschler, D.G.; Bunting, G.W.; Lin, D.T.; Emerick, K.; Rocco, J. Evaluation of Voice Prosthesis Placement at the Time of Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture with Total Laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 2009, 119, 1353–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bozec, A.; Poissonnet, G.; Chamorey, E.; Demard, F.; Santini, J.; Peyrade, F.; Ortholan, C.; Benezery, K.; Thariat, J.; Sudaka, A.; et al. Results of Vocal Rehabilitation Using Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis after Total Laryngectomy and Their Predictive Factors. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2010, 267, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Balm, A.J.M.; van den Brekel, M.W.M.; Tan, I.B.; Hilgers, F.J.M. The Indwelling Voice Prosthesis for Speech Rehabilitation after Total Laryngectomy: A Safe Approach. Otolaryngol. Pol. 2011, 65, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lewin, J.S. Nonsurgical Management of the Stoma to Maximize Tracheoesophageal Speech. Otolaryngol. Clin. N. Am. 2004, 37, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Clairmont, A.A. Tracheostoma Construction during Laryngectomy: Techniques to Prevent Stenosis. J. Laryngol. Otol. 1978, 92, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Suzuki, M.; Tsunoda, A.; Shirakura, S.; Sumi, T.; Nishijima, W.; Kishimoto, S. A Novel Permanent Tracheostomy Technique for Prevention of Stomal Stenosis (Triangular Tracheostomy). Auris Nasus Larynx 2010, 37, 465–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Bajaj, Y.; Shayah, A.; Loke, D.; Sethi, N.; Gunasekaran, S.; Woodhead, C.J. Long-Term Results with a Simple Technique of Stoma Creation after Laryngectomy. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2009, 266, 879–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. van der Houwen, E.B.; van Kalkeren, T.A.; Post, W.J.; Hilgers, F.J.M.; van der Laan, B.F.A.M.; Verkerke, G.J. Does the Patch Fit the Stoma? A Study on Peristoma Geometry and Patch Use in Laryngectomized Patients. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2011, 36, 235–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Omori, K.; Kojima, H.; Nonomura, M.; Fukushima, H. Mechanism of Tracheoesophageal Shunt Phonation. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1994, 120, 648–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lippert, D.; Hoffman, M.R.; Britt, C.J.; Jones, C.A.; Hernandez, J.; Ciucci, M.R.; McCulloch, T.M. Preliminary Evaluation of Functional Swallow After Total Laryngectomy Using High-Resolution Manometry. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 2016, 125, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Beswick, D.M.; Damrose, E.J. Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture and Cricopharyngeal Myotomy in Stapler-Assisted Total Laryngectomy. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2016, 130, 686–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jacobs, J.R.; Logemann, J.; Pajak, T.F.; Pauloski, B.R.; Collins, S.; Casiano, R.R.; Schuller, D.E. Failure of Cricopharyngeal Myotomy to Improve Dysphagia Following Head and Neck Cancer Surgery. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1999, 125, 942–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Op de Coul, B.M.R.; van den Hoogen, F.J.A.; van As, C.J.; Marres, H.A.M.; Joosten, F.B.M.; Manni, J.J.; Hilgers, F.J.M. Evaluation of the Effects of Primary Myotomy in Total Laryngectomy on the Neoglottis with the Use of Quantitative Videofluoroscopy. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2003, 129, 1000–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hilgers, F. Strömungsleichte Alternative Aus Amsterdam: Die Provox-Stimmprothese. Med. Rep. 1993, 8. [Google Scholar]
  47. Santoro, G.P.; Luparello, P.; Lazio, M.S.; Comini, L.V.; Martelli, F.; Cannavicci, A. Myotomy of Sternocleidomastoid Muscle as a Secondary Procedure in Laryngectomized Patients. Head Neck 2019, 41, 3743–3746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. van Kalkeren, T.A.; van der Houwen, E.B.; Duits, M.A.E.; Hilgers, F.J.; Hebe, A.; Mostafa, B.E.; Lawson, G.; Martinez, Z.; Woisard, V.; Marioni, G.; et al. Worldwide, Multicenter Study of Peristomal Geometry and Morphology in Laryngectomees and Its Clinical Effects. Head Neck 2011, 33, 1184–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Clarke, P.; Radford, K.; Coffey, M.; Stewart, M. Speech and Swallow Rehabilitation in Head and Neck Cancer: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2016, 130, S176–S180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stafford, F.W. Current Indications and Complications of Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Restoration after Laryngectomy. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2003, 11, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gitomer, S.A.; Hutcheson, K.A.; Christianson, B.L.; Samuelson, M.B.; Barringer, D.A.; Roberts, D.B.; Hessel, A.C.; Weber, R.S.; Lewin, J.S.; Zafereo, M.E. Influence of Timing, Radiation, and Reconstruction on Complications and Speech Outcomes with Tracheoesophageal Puncture. Head Neck 2016, 38, 1765–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Barauna Neto, J.C.; Dedivitis, R.A.; Aires, F.T.; Pfann, R.Z.; Matos, L.L.; Cernea, C.R. Comparison between Primary and Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture Prosthesis: A Systematic Review. ORL J. Otorhinolaryngol. Relat. Spec. 2017, 79, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Sparks, F.; Dipper, L.; Coffey, M.; Hilari, K. Approaches to Tracheoesophageal Voice Rehabilitation: A Survey of the UK and Irish Speech and Language Therapists’ Current Practice and Beliefs. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2023, 58, 1481–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kao, W.W.; Mohr, R.M.; Kimmel, C.A.; Getch, C.; Silverman, C. The Outcome and Techniques of Primary and Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 1994, 120, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Maniglia, A.J.; Lundy, D.S.; Casiano, R.C.; Swim, S.C. Speech Restoration and Complications of Primary versus Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture Following Total Laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 1989, 99, 489–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Summers, L. Exploring the Communication Experiences of Tracheoesophageal Speakers after Laryngectomy: A Qualitative Study. Master’s Thesis, City University London, London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  57. Topf, M.C.; Magaña, L.C.; Salmon, K.; Hamilton, J.; Keane, W.M.; Luginbuhl, A.; Curry, J.M.; Cognetti, D.M.; Boon, M.; Spiegel, J.R. Safety and Efficacy of Functional Laryngectomy for End-Stage Dysphagia. Laryngoscope 2018, 128, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wong, S.H.; Yuen, A.P.; Cheung, C.; Wei, W.I.; Lam, L.K. Long-Term Results of Voice Rehabilitation after Total Laryngectomy Using Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture in Chinese Patients. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 1997, 18, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sethi, R.K.V.; Kozin, E.D.; Lam, A.C.; Emerick, K.S.; Deschler, D.G. Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture with Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap after Total Laryngectomy or Laryngopharyngectomy. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2014, 151, 421–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cheng, E.; Ho, M.; Ganz, C.; Shaha, A.; Boyle, J.O.; Singh, B.; Wong, R.J.; Patel, S.; Shah, J.; Branski, R.C.; et al. Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture: A 16-Year Retrospective Analysis. Ear Nose Throat J. 2006, 85, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sinclair, C.F.; Rosenthal, E.L.; McColloch, N.L.; Magnuson, J.S.; Desmond, R.A.; Peters, G.E.; Carroll, W.R. Primary versus Delayed Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Laryngopharyngectomy with Free Flap Reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2011, 121, 1436–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Divi, V.; Lin, D.T.; Emerick, K.; Rocco, J.; Deschler, D.G. Primary TEP Placement in Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Free Tissue Reconstruction and Salivary Bypass Tube Placement. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2011, 144, 474–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Cabo-Varela, I.; Suanzes-Hernández, J.; Calvo-Henríquez, C.; Chiesa-Estomba, C.; Herranz González-Botas, J. Use of Double Flange Voice Prosthesis for Periprosthetic Leakage in Laryngectomised Patients: A Prospective Case-Crossover Study. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2020, 45, 389–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. González Poggioli, N.; Herranz González-Botas, J.; Vázquez Barro, J.C.; Novoa Juiz, V.; Martínez Vidal, J. Fístulas Fonatorias Hoy. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Española 2007, 58, 110–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Cabo-Varela, I.; Dovalo-Carballo, L.; Calvo-Henríquez, C.; Martínez-Morán, A.; González-Botas, J.H. Provox 2® and Provox Vega® device Life-Time: A Case-Crossover Study with Multivariate Analysis of Possible Influential Factors and Duration. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2018, 275, 1827–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Stanisce, L.; McGlone, M.; Koshkareva, Y.; Swendseid, B.; Lawrence, I.; Kubicek, G.J.; Gaughan, J.P.; Solomon, D.H.; Ahmad, N. Socioeconomic Influence on Speech Rehabilitation After Total Laryngectomy. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2023, 169, 1499–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hutcheson, K.A.; Lewin, J.S.; Sturgis, E.M.; Risser, J. Multivariable Analysis of Risk Factors for Enlargement of the Tracheoesophageal Puncture After Total Laryngectomy. Head Neck 2012, 34, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jansen, F.; Coupé, V.M.H.; Eerenstein, S.E.J.; Cnossen, I.C.; van Uden-Kraan, C.F.; de Bree, R.; Doornaert, P.; Halmos, G.B.; Hardillo, J.A.U.; van Hinte, G.; et al. Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness of a Guided Self-Help Head and Neck Exercise Program for Patients Treated with Total Laryngectomy: Results of a Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial. Oral. Oncol. 2021, 117, 105306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Summers, L. Social and Quality of Life Impact Using a Voice Prosthesis after Laryngectomy. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2017, 25, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Gourin, C.G.; Stewart, C.M.; Frick, K.D.; Fakhry, C.; Pitman, K.T.; Eisele, D.W.; Austin, J.M. Association of Hospital Volume With Laryngectomy Outcomes in Patients With Larynx Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2019, 145, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Emerick, K.S.; Tomycz, L.; Bradford, C.R.; Lyden, T.H.; Chepeha, D.B.; Wolf, G.T.; Teknos, T.N. Primary versus Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture in Salvage Total Laryngectomy Following Chemoradiation. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2009, 140, 386–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. De Coul, B.M.R.O.; Hilgers, F.J.M.; Balm, A.J.M.; Tan, I.B.; van denHoogen, F.J.A.; van Tinteren, H. A Decade of Postlaryngectomy Vocal Rehabilitation in 318 Patients: A Single Institution’s Experience With Consistent Application of Provox Indwelling Voice Prostheses. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2000, 126, 1320–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Chakravarty, P.D.; McMurran, A.E.L.; Banigo, A.; Shakeel, M.; Ah-See, K.W. Primary versus Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2018, 132, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chone, C.; Gripp, F.M.; Ortiz, E.; Bortoletto, A.; Spina, A.L.; Crespo, A.N. Primary and Secondary Tracheo-Esophageal Puncture: Long-Term Results with Voice Prosthesis. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2004, 131, P133–P134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Landry, V.; Christopoulos, A.; Guertin, L.; Bissada, E.; Tabet, P.; Berania, I.; Royal-Lajeunesse, É.; Olivier, M.-J.; Ayad, T. Patterns of Alaryngeal Voice Adoption and Predictive Factors of Vocal Rehabilitation Failure Following Total Laryngectomy. Head Neck 2023, 45, 2657–2669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wu, C.; Zhang, D.; Yuan, X.; Chen, L.; Tao, L. Indications and Complications of Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture in Chinese Laryngectomees. Acta Oto-Laryngol. 2022, 142, 721–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Boscolo-Rizzo, P.; Zanetti, F.; Carpené, S.; Mosto, M.C.D. Long-Term Results with Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis: Primary versus Secondary TEP. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2008, 265, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Guttman, D.; Mizrachi, A.; Hadar, T.; Bachar, G.; Hamzani, Y.; Marx, S.; Shvero, J. Post-Laryngectomy Voice Rehabilitation: Comparison of Primary and Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture. Isr. Med. Assoc. J. 2013, 15, 497–499. [Google Scholar]
  79. Maves, M.D.; Lingeman, R.E. Primary Vocal Rehabilitation Using the Blom-Singer and Panje Voice Prostheses. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1982, 91, 458–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Juarbe, C.; Shemen, L.; Eberle, R.; Klatsky, I.; Fox, M. Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Restoration. Am. J. Surg. 1986, 152, 464–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wenig, B.L.; Mullooly, V.; Levy, J.; Abramson, A.L. Voice Restoration Following Laryngectomy: The Role of Primary versus Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1989, 98, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chone, C.T.; Gripp, F.M.; Spina, A.L.; Crespo, A.N. Primary versus Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Speech Rehabilitation in Total Laryngectomy: Long-Term Results with Indwelling Voice Prosthesis. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2005, 133, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Parrilla, C.; Longobardi, Y.; Paludetti, G.; Marenda, M.E.; D’Alatri, L.; Bussu, F.; Scarano, E.; Galli, J. A One-Year Time Frame for Voice Prosthesis Management. What Should the Physician Expect? Is It an Overrated Job? Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2020, 40, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Hotz, M.A.; Baumann, A.; Schaller, I.; Zbären, P. Success and Predictability of Provox Prosthesis Voice Rehabilitation. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2002, 128, 687–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Serra, A.; Di Mauro, P.; Spataro, D.; Maiolino, L.; Cocuzza, S. Post-Laryngectomy Voice Rehabilitation with Voice Prosthesis: 15 Years Experience of the ENT Clinic of University of Catania. Retrospective Data Analysis and Literature Review. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2015, 35, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Galli, A.; Giordano, L.; Biafora, M.; Tulli, M.; Di Santo, D.; Bussi, M. Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation after Total Laryngectomy: Are Satisfaction and Quality of Life Maintained over Time? Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2019, 39, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hutcheson, K.A.; Lewin, J.S.; Sturgis, E.M.; Kapadia, A.; Risser, J. Enlarged Tracheoesophageal Puncture after Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Head Neck 2011, 33, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Luu, K.; Chang, B.A.; Valenzuela, D.; Anderson, D. Primary versus Secondary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Rehabilitation in Laryngectomy Patients: A Systematic Review. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2018, 43, 1250–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Hutcheson, K.A.; Lewin, J.S.; Sturgis, E.M.; Risser, J. Outcomes and Adverse Events of Enlarged Tracheoesophageal Puncture after Total Laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 2011, 121, 1455–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Lorenz, K.J. The Development and Treatment of Periprosthetic Leakage after Prosthetic Voice Restoration. A Literature Review and Personal Experience Part I: The Development of Periprosthetic Leakage. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2015, 272, 641–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Parrilla, C.; Longobardi, Y.; Galli, J.; Rigante, M.; Paludetti, G.; Bussu, F.; Scarano, E. Periprosthetic Leakage in Tracheoesophageal Prosthesis: Proposal of a Standardized Therapeutic Algorithm. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2021, 165, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Vaira, L.A.; Lechien, J.R.; Chiesa-Estomba, C.M.; Calvo-Henríquez, C.M.; Chiesa-Estomba, C.M.; Calvo-Henríquez, C.; Cabo-Varela, I. Commentary on Periprosthetic Leakage in Tracheoesophageal Prosthesis: Proposal of a Standardized Therapeutic Algorithm. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2022, 167, 799–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lorenz, K.J. The Development and Treatment of Periprosthetic Leakage after Prosthetic Voice Restoration: A Literature Review and Personal Experience. Part II: Conservative and Surgical Management. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2015, 272, 661–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hilgers, F.J.M.; Soolsma, J.; Ackerstaff, A.H.; Balm, F.J.M.; Tan, I.B.; van den Brekel, M.W.M. A Thin Tracheal Silicone Washer to Solve Periprosthetic Leakage in Laryngectomies: Direct Results and Long-Term Clinical Effects. Laryngoscope 2008, 118, 640–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Choussy, O.; Hibon, R.; Mardion, N.B.; Dehesdin, D. Management of Voice Prosthesis Leakage with Blom-Singer Large Esophage and Tracheal Flange Voice Prostheses. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2013, 130, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Cabo-Varela, I.; Calvo-Henríquez, C.; Chiesa-Estomba, C.; Herranz González-Botas, J. Prevention of periprosthetic leakage with double flange voice prosthesis: A systematic review and management protocol proposal. Logoped Phoniatr. Vocol 2023, 48, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Rodríguez-Lorenzana, P.; Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Chiesa-Estomba, C.M.; Vaira, L.A.; Lechien, J.R.; Maniaci, A.; Cabo-Varela, I. Cost-Effectiveness Study of Double-Flange Voice Prostheses in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Leakage in Laryngectomized Patients. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Ramos-Neble, M.D.; Cabo-Varela, I.; Chiesa-Estomba, C.M.; Lechien, J.R.; Fakhry, N.; Maniaci, A.; Hutcheson, K.A. Tissue Augmentation Treatment for Periprosthetic Leakage in Patients Who Have Undergone a Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review. Clin. Otolaryngol. 2023, 48, 515–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Vaira, L.A.; Maniaci, A.; Cabo-Varela, I. Enlarged Tracheoesophageal Fistula Following Total Laryngectomy: A Common Problem and a Therapeutic Challenge. Dysphagia 2023, 38, 1615–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Malik, T.; Bruce, I.; Cherry, J. Surgical Complications of Tracheo-Oesophageal Puncture and Speech Valves. Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2007, 15, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Escandón, J.M.; Mohammad, A.; Mathews, S.; Bustos, V.P.; Santamaría, E.; Ciudad, P.; Chen, H.-C.; Langstein, H.N.; Manrique, O.J. Definitive Closure of the Tracheoesophageal Puncture Site after Oncologic Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch. Plast. Surg. 2022, 49, 617–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Panwar, A.; Militsakh, O.; Lindau, R.; Coughlin, A.; Sayles, H.; Rieke, K.R.; Lydiatt, W.; Lydiatt, D.; Smith, R. Impact of Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture on Outcomes after Total Laryngectomy. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2018, 158, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Kuo, M.; Ho, C.M.; Wei, W.I.; Lam, K.H. Tracheostomal Stenosis after Total Laryngectomy: An Analysis of Predisposing Clinical Factors. Laryngoscope 1994, 104, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Dayangku Norsuhazenah, P.S.; Baki, M.M.; Mohamad Yunus, M.R.; Sabir Husin Athar, P.P.; Abdullah, S. Complications Following Tracheoesophageal Puncture: A Tertiary Hospital Experience. Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 2010, 39, 565–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Markou, K.D.; Vlachtsis, K.C.; Nikolaou, A.C.; Petridis, D.G.; Kouloulas, A.I.; Daniilidis, I.C. Incidence and Predisposing Factors of Pharyngocutaneous Fistula Formation after Total Laryngectomy. Is There a Relationship with Tumor Recurrence? Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2004, 261, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Karlen, R.G.; Maisel, R.H. Does Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture Reduce Complications after Laryngectomy and Improve Patient Communication? Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2001, 22, 324–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Parikh, S.R.; Irish, J.C.; Curran, A.J.; Gullane, P.J.; Brown, D.H.; Rotstein, L.E. Pharyngocutaneous Fistulae in Laryngectomy Patients: The Toronto Hospital Experience. J. Otolaryngol. 1998, 27, 136–140. [Google Scholar]
  108. Dedivitis, R.A.; Aires, F.T.; Cernea, C.R.; Brandao, L.G. Pharyngocutaneous Fistula after Total Laryngectomy: Systematic Review of Risk Factors. Head Neck 2015, 37, 1691–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Liang, J.W.; Li, Z.D.; Li, S.C.; Fang, F.Q.; Zhao, Y.J.; Li, Y.G. Pharyngocutaneous Fistula after Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors. Auris Nasus Larynx 2015, 42, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Chiesa-Estomba, C.M.; Lechien, J.R.; Maniaci, A.; van den Brekel, M. Commentary on “Voice Rehabilitation by Voice Prostheses After Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for 11,918 Patients”. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2022, 65, 3452–3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Agarwal, S.K.; Gogia, S.; Agarwal, A.; Agarwal, R.; Mathur, A.S. Assessment of Voice Related Quality of Life and Its Correlation with Socioeconomic Status after Total Laryngectomy. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2015, 4, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Healthcare 12 00652 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram [24].
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram [24].
Healthcare 12 00652 g001
Table 1. Summary of statements related to the techniques for performing primary TEP.
Table 1. Summary of statements related to the techniques for performing primary TEP.
NumberStatementLevel of EvidenceGrade of Recommendation
1The use of commercially available kits for the performance of primary TEP is recommended.4C
2Tracheal suturing to the lateral musculature is recommended to prevent stoma stenosis.4C
3A stoma size between 1.5 and 2 cm is recommended for improved use, care, and replacement of the VP, as well as HME therapy.4C
4Cricopharyngeal myotomy is recommended to reduce swallowing and phonation pressure.4C
5The section of the medial portion of both sternocleidomastoid muscles at their distal end is recommended to flatten the stoma.4C
Abbreviations: TEP, tracheoesophageal puncture; HME, heat and moisture exchanger.
Table 2. Summary of statements related to primary TEP indications.
Table 2. Summary of statements related to primary TEP indications.
NumberStatementLevel of EvidenceGrade of Recommendation
6Primary TEP can be performed in all laryngectomized patients, regardless of the location and extent of the tumor or the need for reconstructions with free or pedicled flaps.4C
7Primary TEP in salvage total laryngectomies after chemoradiotherapy has not been shown to increase the incidence of complications related to the VP.4C
8A multidisciplinary and multidimensional preoperative evaluation is recommended to correctly select candidates for primary TEP. This evaluation should include an assessment of the patient’s overall health, motivation, speech therapy evaluation, ORL evaluation, and evaluation of social/family support.3bB
9The best rehabilitative outcomes are found in centers with experience, high specialization, and sufficient resources and patient volume.2bB
Abbreviations: TEP, tracheoesophageal puncture; VP, voice prosthesis; ORL, otorhinolaryngology.
Table 3. Summary of statements related to primary TEP contraindications.
Table 3. Summary of statements related to primary TEP contraindications.
NumberStatementLevel of EvidenceGrade of Recommendation
10Primary TEP is not recommended in cases of lingual or mandibular involvement requiring total glossectomy or resulting in sequelae that prevent proper word articulation.4C
11Primary TEP is not recommended for patients in poor overall health, with incapacitating comorbidities, a lack of motivation for rehabilitation, or a negative assessment following preoperative evaluation.4C
12In a patient at high risk of postoperative complications, including pharyngocutaneous fistula, deferring the performance of primary TEP should be considered.4C
13The performance of primary TEP or rehabilitation with tracheoesophageal voice in healthcare centers without the necessary resources for proper rehabilitative treatment and follow-up is not recommended.2bB
Abbreviations: TEP, tracheoesophageal puncture.
Table 4. Summary of statements related to primary TEP complications.
Table 4. Summary of statements related to primary TEP complications.
NumberStatementLevel of EvidenceGrade of Recommendation
14The treatment of periprosthetic leakage should be gradual and systematic, escalating interventions from more conservative to more aggressive.4C
15For the management of periprosthetic leakage, the replacement of the prosthesis with a double-flanged one, such as the Provox® Vega™ XtraSeal™, is recommended.3bB
16For the management of periprosthetic leakage, VP replacement with the adjustment of diameter and length, or the placement of a silicone sheet on the tracheal side of the prosthesis, is also recommended.4C
17For the treatment of local infection in postoperative tracheoesophageal fistula, initiating a conservative approach with antibiotics and ongoing monitoring is recommended.4C
18Surgical stomaplasty is recommended for the treatment of respiratory stoma stenosis.4C
Abbreviations: VP, voice prosthesis.
Table 5. Statement of the relation of primary TEP and postoperative pharyngocutaneous fistula.
Table 5. Statement of the relation of primary TEP and postoperative pharyngocutaneous fistula.
NumberStatementLevel of EvidenceGrade of Recommendation
19The performance of primary TEP has not been shown to influence the incidence of pharyngocutaneous fistula following total laryngectomy.4C
Abbreviations: TEP, tracheoesophageal puncture.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mayo-Yáñez, M.; Klein-Rodríguez, A.; López-Eiroa, A.; Cabo-Varela, I.; Rivera-Rivera, R.; Parente-Arias, P. Evidence-Based Recommendations in Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation. Healthcare 2024, 12, 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12060652

AMA Style

Mayo-Yáñez M, Klein-Rodríguez A, López-Eiroa A, Cabo-Varela I, Rivera-Rivera R, Parente-Arias P. Evidence-Based Recommendations in Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation. Healthcare. 2024; 12(6):652. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12060652

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mayo-Yáñez, Miguel, Alejandro Klein-Rodríguez, Aldán López-Eiroa, Irma Cabo-Varela, Raquel Rivera-Rivera, and Pablo Parente-Arias. 2024. "Evidence-Based Recommendations in Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation" Healthcare 12, no. 6: 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12060652

APA Style

Mayo-Yáñez, M., Klein-Rodríguez, A., López-Eiroa, A., Cabo-Varela, I., Rivera-Rivera, R., & Parente-Arias, P. (2024). Evidence-Based Recommendations in Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation. Healthcare, 12(6), 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12060652

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop