Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29799083›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2018

Provox 2

Miguel Mayo-Yáñez, Irma Cabo-Varela, Loredana Dovalo-Carballo, Christian Calvo-Henríquez, Alejandro Martínez-Morán, Jesús Herranz González-Botas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a magnet-based valve voice prosthesis for endoprosthesis leakage treatment.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Miguel Mayo-YáñezOtorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), Xubias de Arriba, 84, 15006, A Coruña, Spain. miguelmmy@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1829-6597
Irma Cabo-VarelaOtorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), Xubias de Arriba, 84, 15006, A Coruña, Spain.
Loredana Dovalo-CarballoSpeech Therapy, School of Educational Sciences, Universidade da Coruña (UDC), 15010, A Coruña, Spain.
Christian Calvo-HenríquezOtorhinolaryngology Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario Santiago de Compostela (CHUS), 15706, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Alejandro Martínez-MoránOtorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), Xubias de Arriba, 84, 15006, A Coruña, Spain.
Jesús Herranz González-BotasOtorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Department, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña (CHUAC), Xubias de Arriba, 84, 15006, A Coruña, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTracheoesophageal speech is considered the gold standard for rehabilitation following total laryngectomy. Current literature is limited and contradictory about the possible causes of device failure. The aim of the study is to compare the device life-time between the Provox 2 and Provox Vega and to examine possible related factors that influence their duration.

methodsRetrospective case-crossover study in 34 laryngectomized patients who had undergone tracheoesophageal voice rehabilitation using indwelling Provox 2 and Provox Vega voice prostheses between 2010 and 2016 in a tertiary care centre.

resultsA total of 440 prostheses were evaluated. The most frequent reason for replacement was due to an endoprosthesis leakage (n = 221, 64.2%) in both models. Radiotherapy increases the risk of prosthesis replacement (IRR = 1.88, p = 0.007) as well as bilateral neck dissection (IRR = 1.56, p = 0.017) in Provox 2. Age and unilateral neck dissection do not seem to influence the duration of the prosthesis. Mean life-time of Provox 2 was 106.64 days and 124.19 days for Provox Vega (p = 0.261). Complementary treatment with radiotherapy demonstrated a lower device survival (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Results confirmed the non-significant differences on device life between Provox Vega and Provox 2, as well as the relevant role of radiotherapy treatment in the increase of replacements and diminution of the device duration.

Indexed as

LaryngectomyLarynx, ArtificialProsthesis FailureAdultAgedCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansLaryngeal NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisProsthesis DesignProsthesis ImplantationRetrospective StudiesAlaryngeal speechDevice lifeLaryngectomyProvox 2Provox VegaTracheoesophageal voice prosthesis

Identifiers

PMID29799083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.