Voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy using voice prostheses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/QS.2026.50.67974Keywords
esophageal speech, tracheoesophageal speech, tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis, voice rehabilitation, hand-free speechAbstract
Laryngeal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors of the upper respiratory tract. Total laryngectomy remains the primary treatment method for its advanced stages. Although the procedure can achieve oncological cure, it leads to numerous multidimensional consequences, the most significant of which is the permanent loss of voice. Voice rehabilitation is a key component of postoperative adaptation, enabling patients to reintegrate into social life. Among the available methods of speech restoration, tracheoesophageal voice prostheses allow for rapid recovery of communication ability, provide the highest quality of substitute speech and significantly improve quality of life. The wide range of available models allows for individualized selection according to patient needs, and the use of automatic speaking valves facilitates hands-free speech. Despite these advantages, the use of voice prostheses is associated with complications that may impair daily functioning and reduce patient comfort. Tracheoesophageal voice prostheses remain the most effective and functionally satisfactory method of post-laryngectomy voice rehabilitation, although their use requires proper care, patient education, and regular medical follow-up to minimize complications. Implementation of timely and individualized voice rehabilitation using tracheoesophageal prostheses plays a crucial role in improving communication, psychosocial well-being, and overall quality of life in patients after total laryngectomy. The aim of this review is to present current methods of post-laryngectomy voice rehabilitation with particular emphasis on tracheoesophageal voice prostheses, considered the gold standard in restoring communication ability.
References
1. Woodard TD, Oplatek A, Petruzzelli GJ. Life after total laryngectomy: a measure of long-term survival, function, and quality of life. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(6):526-532. doi:10.1001/archotol.133.6.526
2. Allegra E, La Mantia I, Bianco MR, et al. Verbal performance of total laryngectomized patients rehabilitated with esophageal speech and tracheoesophageal speech: impacts on patient quality of life. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2019;12:675-681. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S212793
3. Cavaliere M, Bisogno A, Scarpa A, et al. Biomarkers of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a review. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2021;54:151787. doi:10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2021.151787
4. Noonan BJ, Hegarty J. The impact of total laryngectomy: the patient’s perspective. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010;37(3):293-301. doi:10.1188/10.ONF.293-301
5. Dooks P, McQuestion M, Goldstein D, Molassiotis A. Experiences of patients with laryngectomies as they reintegrate into their community. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(3):489-498. doi:10.1007/s00520-011-1101-4
6. 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(3):162-168. doi:10.14639/0392-100X-2227
7. Ţiple C, Drugan T, Dinescu FV, Mureşan R, Chirilă M, Cosgarea M. The impact of vocal rehabilitation on quality of life and voice handicap in patients with total laryngectomy. J Res Med Sci. 2016;21:127. doi:10.4103/1735-1995.196609
8. Harada Y, Matsuki T, Miyamoto S, et al. Total laryngectomy increases the risk of chronic constipation: a cross-sectional study of 50 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2023;280(1):419-423. doi:10.1007/s00405-022-07600-7
9. Lee MY, Belfiglio M, Zeng J, et al. Primary Total Laryngectomy versus Organ Preservation for Locally Advanced T3/T4a Laryngeal Cancer. Laryngoscope. 2023;133(5):1122-1131. doi:10.1002/lary.30254
10. Ackerstaff AH, Hilgers FJ, Balm AJ, Van Zandwijk N. Long-term pulmonary function after total laryngectomy. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1995;20(6):547-551. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2273.1995.tb01599.x
11. Schönwald C, Körber MI, Beutner D, et al. Short-term and long-term follow-up of pulmonary function in patients with COPD after total laryngectomy: A prospective study. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(9):2045-2049. doi:10.1002/lary.26484
12. Bickford J, Coveney J, Baker J, Hersh D. Validating the Changes to Self-identity After Total Laryngectomy. Cancer Nurs. 2019;42(4):314-322. doi:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000610
13. Covrig VI, Lazăr DE, Costan VV, Postolică R, Ioan BG. The Psychosocial Role of Body Image in the Quality of Life of Head and Neck Cancer Patients. What Does the Future Hold?-A Review of the Literature. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(10). doi:10.3390/medicina57101078
14. Rapoport Y, Kreitler S, Chaitchik S, Algor R, Weissler K. Psychosocial problems in head-and-neck cancer patients and their change with time since diagnosis. Ann Oncol. 1993;4(1):69-73. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a058365
15. Wulff NL, Dalton SO, Wessel I, et al. Rehabilitation of dysphagia and voice problems following total laryngectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. October 17, 2024. doi:10.1007/s00405-024-09023-y
16. Kaye R, Tang CG, Sinclair CF. The electrolarynx: voice restoration after total laryngectomy. Med Devices (Auckl). 2017;10:133-140. doi:10.2147/MDER.S133225
17. Ghevariya V, Bansal R. Tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: endoscopic appearance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):236; discussion 236-7. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.028
18. Bohnenkamp TA. The effects of a total laryngectomy on speech breathing. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;16(3):200-204. doi:10.1097/MOO.0b013e3282fe96ac
19. Santos FHT, da Silva AR, Tourinho AMC, Erath B. Influence of position and angulation of a voice prosthesis on the aerodynamics of the pseudo-glottis. J Biomech. 2021;125:110594. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110594
20. Spałek J, Deptuła P, Cieśluk M, et al. Biofilm Growth Causes Damage to Silicone Voice Prostheses in Patients after Surgical Treatment of Locally Advanced Laryngeal Cancer. Pathogens. 2020;9(10). doi:10.3390/pathogens9100793
21. Lorenz KJ. Rehabilitation after Total Laryngectomy-A Tribute to the Pioneers of Voice Restoration in the Last Two Centuries. Front Med (Lausanne). 2017;4:81. doi:10.3389/fmed.2017.00081
22. Arias MR, Ramón JL, Campos M, Cervantes JJ. Acoustic analysis of the voice in phonatory fistuloplasty after total laryngectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;122(5):743-747. doi:10.1016/S0194-5998(00)70208-7
23. 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(6):412-419. doi:10.14639/0392-100X-680
24. Bianco MR, Saita V, Occhiuzzi F, et al. Long-Term Complications of Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis. J Clin Med. 2024;13(7). doi:10.3390/jcm13071912
25. Jassar P, England RJ, Stafford ND. Restoration of voice after laryngectomy. J R Soc Med. 1999;92(6):299-302. doi:10.1177/014107689909200608
26. Bozec A, Poissonnet G, Chamorey E, et al. Results of vocal rehabilitation using tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy and their predictive factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267(5):751-758. doi:10.1007/s00405-009-1138-x
27. Emerick KS, Tomycz L, Bradford CR, et al. Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture in salvage total laryngectomy following chemoradiation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140(3):386-390. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2008.10.018
28. Boscolo-Rizzo P, Zanetti F, Carpené S, Da Mosto MC. Long-term results with tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: primary versus secondary TEP. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;265(1):73-77. doi:10.1007/s00405-007-0423-9
29. Cheng E, Ho M, Ganz C, et al. Outcomes of primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture: a 16-year retrospective analysis. Ear Nose Throat J. 2006;85(4):262, 264-267.
30. 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 (Basel). 2024;12(6). doi:10.3390/healthcare12060652
31. Op de Coul BMR, Ackerstaff AH, van As-Brooks CJ, et al. Compliance, quality of life and quantitative voice quality aspects of hands-free speech. Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;125(6):629-637. doi:10.1080/00016480510031515
32. Ward EC, Koh SK, Frisby J, Hodge R. Differential modes of alaryngeal communication and long-term voice outcomes following pharyngolaryngectomy and laryngectomy. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2003;55(1):39-49. doi:10.1159/000068056
33. Clements KS, Rassekh CH, Seikaly H, Hokanson JA, Calhoun KH. Communication after laryngectomy. An assessment of patient satisfaction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123(5):493-496. doi:10.1001/archotol.1997.01900050039004
34. Blood GW. Fundamental frequency and intensity measurements in laryngeal and alaryngeal speakers. J Commun Disord. 1984;17(5):319-324. doi:10.1016/0021-9924(84)90034-0
35. Sirić L, Sos D, Rosso M, Stevanović S. Objective assessment of tracheoesophageal and esophageal speech using acoustic analysis of voice. Coll Antropol. 2012;36 Suppl 2:111-114.
36. Chakravarty PD, McMurran AEL, Banigo A, Shakeel M, Ah-See KW. Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Laryngol Otol. 2018;132(1):14-21. doi:10.1017/S0022215117002390
37. Chen H-C, Kim Evans KF, Salgado CJ, Mardini S. Methods of voice reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2010;24(2):227-232. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1255340
38. Delsupehe K, Zink I, Lejaegere M, Delaere P. Prospective randomized comparative study of tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis: Blom-Singer versus Provox. Laryngoscope. 1998;108(10):1561-1565. doi:10.1097/00005537-199810000-00026
39. Harms K, Post WJ, van de Laan KT, van den Hoogen FJA, Eerenstein SEJ, van der Laan BFAM. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial of the Provox2 and Groningen Ultra Low Resistance voice prostheses in the rehabilitation of post-laryngectomy patients: a lifetime and preference study. Oral Oncol. 2011;47(9):895-899. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.04.004
40. van den Hoogen FJ, Van den Berg RJ, Oudes MJ, Manni JJ. A prospective study of speech and voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy with the low-resistance Groningen, Nijdam and Provox voice prostheses. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1998;23(5):425-431. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2273.1998.00164.x
41. Ramalingam W, Chikara D, Rajagopal G, Mehta AR, Sarkar S. Tracheo-esophageal Puncture (TEP) for Voice Rehabilitation in Laryngectomised Patients Blom-singer® Vs Provox® Prosthesis : Our Experience. Med J Armed Forces India. 2007;63(1):15-18. doi:10.1016/S0377-1237(07)80098-0
42. Tawfik GM, Makram OM, Zayan AH, et al. Voice Rehabilitation by Voice Prostheses After Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis for 11,918 Patients. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021;64(7):2668-2681. doi:10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00597
43. Lorenz KJ, Groll K, Ackerstaff AH, Hilgers FJM, Maier H. Hands-free speech after surgical voice rehabilitation with a Provox voice prosthesis: experience with the Provox FreeHands HME tracheostoma valve system. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;264(2):151-157. doi:10.1007/s00405-006-0155-2
44. van den Hoogen FJ, Meeuwis C, Oudes MJ, Janssen P, Manni JJ. The Blom-Singer tracheostoma valve as a valuable addition in the rehabilitation of the laryngectomized patient. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 1996;253(3):126-129. doi:10.1007/BF00615108
45. Fujimoto PA, Madison CL, Larrigan LB. The effects of a tracheostoma valve on the intelligibility and quality of tracheoesophageal speech. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34(1):33-36. doi:10.1044/jshr.3401.33
46. Hilgers FJM, Ackerstaff AH. Development and evaluation of a novel tracheostoma button and fixation system (Provox LaryButton and LaryClip adhesive) to facilitate hands-free tracheoesophageal speech. Acta Otolaryngol. 2006;126(11):1218-1224. doi:10.1080/00016480600702126
47. Leemans M, van Alphen MJA, Dirven R, Verkerke GJ, Hekman EEG, van den Brekel MWM. Improving Hands-free Speech Rehabilitation in Patients With a Laryngectomy: Proof-of-Concept of an Intratracheal Fixation Device. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;165(2):317-320. doi:10.1177/0194599820982634
48. Leemans M, Longobardi Y, Dirven R, et al. Improving Hands-Free Speech Rehabilitation in Laryngectomized Patients with a Moldable Adhesive. Laryngoscope. 2023;133(11):2965-2970. doi:10.1002/lary.30636
49. Hilgers FJM, Dirven R, Wouters Y, Jacobi I, Marres HAM, van den Brekel MWM. A multicenter, prospective, clinical trial evaluating a novel adhesive baseplate (Provox StabiliBase) for peristomal attachment of postlaryngectomy pulmonary and voice rehabilitation devices. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(11):2447-2453. doi:10.1002/lary.23469
50. Dirven R, Clark JR, Wismans JGF, et al. A new custom moldable external neck brace (ENB 2.0) to improve hands-free speech in laryngectomized patients. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(9):2209-2215. doi:10.1002/lary.24044
51. Dirven R, Kooijman PGC, Wouters Y, Marres HAM. Clinical use of a neck brace to improve hands-free speech in laryngectomized patients. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(6):1267-1272. doi:10.1002/lary.23299
52. Tong JY, Pasick LJ, Benito DA, Sataloff RT. Complications associated with tracheoesophageal voice prostheses from 2010 to 2020: A MAUDE study. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(6):102652. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102652
53. Lorenz KJ, Kraft K, Graf F, Pröpper C, Steinestel K. [Importance of cellular tight junction complexes in the development of periprosthetic leakage after prosthetic voice rehabilitation]. HNO. 2015;63(3):171-172, 174. doi:10.1007/s00106-014-2951-0
54. Wannemuehler TJ, Lobo BC, Johnson JD, Deig CR, Ting JY, Gregory RL. Vibratory stimulus reduces in vitro biofilm formation on tracheoesophageal voice prostheses. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(12):2752-2757. doi:10.1002/lary.25969
55. Tsikopoulos A, Petinaki E, Festas C, et al. In vitro Inhibition of Biofilm Formation on Silicon Rubber Voice Prosthesis: Α Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2022;84(1):10-29. doi:10.1159/000516345
56. Patel RS, Mohr T, Hartman C, et al. Tracheoesophageal prosthesis use is associated with improved overall quality of life in veterans with laryngeal cancer. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2018;127(7):421-428. doi:10.1177/0003489418772067
57. Attieh AY, Searl J, Shahaltough NH, Wreikat MM, Lundy DS. Voice restoration following total laryngectomy by tracheoesophageal prosthesis: effect on patients’ quality of life and voice handicap in Jordan. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:26. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-6-26
58. Miyoshi M, Fukuhara T, Kataoka H, Hagino H. Relationship between quality of life instruments and phonatory function in tracheoesophageal speech with voice prosthesis. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016;21(2):402-408. doi:10.1007/s10147-015-0886-4
59. Maniaci A, La Mantia I, Mayo-Yáñez M, et al. Vocal Rehabilitation and Quality of Life after Total Laryngectomy: State-of-the-Art and Systematic Review. Prosthesis. 2023;5(3):587-601. doi:10.3390/prosthesis5030041
60. Polat B, Orhan KS, Kesimli MC, Gorgulu Y, Ulusan M, Deger K. The effects of indwelling voice prosthesis on the quality of life, depressive symptoms, and self-esteem in patients with total laryngectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(11):3431-3437. doi:10.1007/s00405-014-3335-5
61. Giordano L, Toma S, Teggi R, et al. Satisfaction and quality of life in laryngectomees after voice prosthesis rehabilitation. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2011;63(5):231-236. doi:10.1159/000323185
62. Saltürk Z, Arslanoğlu A, Özdemir E, et al. How do voice restoration methods affect the psychological status of patients after total laryngectomy? HNO. 2016;64(3):163-168. doi:10.1007/s00106-016-0134-x
63. Cocuzza S, Maniaci A, Grillo C, et al. Voice-Related Quality of Life in Post-Laryngectomy Rehabilitation: Tracheoesophageal Fistula’s Wellness. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12). doi:10.3390/ijerph17124605
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Natalia Staszko, Kamila Bała
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 12
Number of citations: 0
