ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evidence-Based Recommendations in Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture for Voice Prosthesis Rehabilitation.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term health-related quality of life following an online rehabilitation program after total laryngectomy: a 3-year retrospective longitudinal study.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Observational
- Safety of Primary Tracheoesophageal Puncture in Patients Submitted to Enlarged Total Laryngectomy with Pectoralis Major Reconstruction.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.