Tracheoesophageal Voice Therapy in Postlaryngectomy Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

Freya Sparks; Margaret Coffey; Lucy Dipper; Sally Morgan; Katerina Hilari

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.10.033

Tracheoesophageal Voice Therapy in Postlaryngectomy Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review

J Voice. 2023 Nov 23:S0892-1997(23)00355-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.10.033. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Freya Sparks¹, Margaret Coffey², Lucy Dipper³, Sally Morgan³, Katerina Hilari³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Language and Communication Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom; Speech and Language Therapy Department. Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Freya.sparks@city.ac.uk.
² Speech and Language Therapy Department. Imperial College Academic Health Science Centre, London, United Kingdom.
³ Department of Language and Communication Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

PMID: 38000962
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.10.033

Abstract

Background: Following total laryngectomy, surgical voice restoration is considered the optimal modality for re-establishing communication via tracheoesophageal voice. Yet beyond the insertion of a voice prosthesis to elicit voice production, there is suboptimal clinical knowledge of how to rehabilitate the perceptual quality of tracheoesophageal voice. This systematic review will identify and critically evaluate the quality and effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for tracheoesophageal voice. The findings of this review will inform the development of a novel tracheoesophageal voice therapy intervention.

Study design: Systematic literature review carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

Methods: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Eight electronic databases were searched using a prespecified search strategy. Records were independently screened by two reviewers against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were assessed for quality using the PEDro, ROBIN-T, and NHLBI critical appraisal tools. Data was extracted pertaining to participant characteristics and the content, dosage, intensity and outcomes of interventions.

Results: 6344 records were identified, of which 38 were included for full-text review. Six studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Voice rehabilitation was not the primary focus in the majority of studies, and the risk of bias was identified across studies. There was significant heterogeneity in the interventions and outcome measures used within studies with insufficient detail provided on intervention content for tracheoesophageal voice. Evidence for the effectiveness of interventions was limited and inconsistent across studies.

Conclusions: This review found that tracheoesophageal voice therapy is an under-researched area of clinical practice. Evidence from the small body of existing studies was not sufficiently robust to inform clinical practice at this time. This review highlights the necessity to develop and test interventions aimed at improving the perceptual quality of tracheoesophageal voice.

Keywords: Alaryngeal; Laryngectomy; Rehabilitation; Tracheoesophageal; Voice.

Publication types

Review