Discussion:
Voice rehabilitation after TL is an important postoperative issue for the patient quality of life [4,5]. In practice, the VP change is a simple procedure that is usually performed by residents or board-certified physicians. In this study, we reported adequate SLP and patient-reported outcome perception about the SLP-related VP change. The delegation of some clinical tasks from the otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeon to the SLP is a current topical issue that may be associated with many advantages.
First, it is commonly accepted that the development of post-TL tracheoesophageal speech involves important speech rehabilitation work and adequate follow-up for the management of VP leakage, which may be time-consuming for the physician [4]. Currently, the number and the availability of otolaryngologists in rural areas may be limited in some European regions regarding some government hospital reforms that led to significant reduction of medical centers and physicians [6,7]. In our country, the shortage of otolaryngologists in rural regions may lead to patient proposition of post-TL esophageal speech rather than tracheoesophageal speech to limit the need of post-TL care [8]. In that way, the availability of SLPs in the management of VP changes may, therefore, be an advantage for the patient accessibility to health care and follow-up.
Second, in some world regions, SLPs already perform routine videolaryngostroboscopy, which was associated with enhancement of the SLP role in the decision-making process in voice restoration [9]. According to the voice rehabilitation process, SLPs well-know their patients, and a trusting relationship may develop throughout the rehabilitation sessions. In the present study, more than 90% of patients reported high rate of satisfaction outcomes about the SLP-VP change procedure, which may be explained by the trusting relationship between SLP and patient and the feasibility of the procedure.
The delegation of VP changes to SLP makes particularly sense in our country because SLPs may prescribe respiratory or phonatory rehabilitation equipment for TL patients for the last 4 years (March 30, 2017 law). Interestingly, a recent Italian study reported that physicians were not opposed to the delegation of this task to other health professionals, which strengthens the need of debate about this task delegation issue [10].
The primary limitations of the present study were the low number of procedures performed by the SLP (42 procedures) and the low number of patients, which limited the realization of statistical analysis. The lack of use of validated patient-reported outcome questionnaire assessing the VP change procedure is an additional limitation. To the best of our knowledge, there is no similar study available in the literature, which is the main strength of this preliminary study.
Conclusion: The VP change is a feasible procedure for SLP associated with few complications, rare need of physician intervention and adequate patient-reported outcome perception. Future controlled studies are needed to compare VP change outcomes between physicians and SLPs and to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.
References :
1. 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(3):389-393. doi: 10.1111/coa.13513.
2. Luu K, Chang BA, Valenzuela D, Anderson D. Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture for voice rehabilitation in laryngectomy patients: A systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol . 2018; 43(5):1250-1259. doi: 10.1111/coa.13138.
4.Tang CG, Sinclair CF. Voice Restoration After Total Laryngectomy. Otolaryngol Clin North Am . 2015; 48(4):687-702. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2015.04.013.
5. Maniaci A, Lechien JR, Caruso S, Nocera F, Ferlito S, Iannella G, Grillo CM, Magliulo G, Pace A, Vicini C, La Mantia I. Quality of Life After Total LaryngectomyVoice-Related Quality of Life After Total Laryngectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Voice . 2021: S0892-1997(21)00298-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.09.040.
6.Peabody JW, DeMaria L, Smith O, Hoth A, Dragoti E, Luck J. Large-Scale Evaluation of Quality of Care in 6 Countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia Using Clinical Performance and Value Vignettes. Glob Health Sci Pract . 2017; 5(3):412-429. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-17-00044.
7.Straume K, Shaw DM. Effective physician retention strategies in Norway’s northernmost county. Bull World Health Organ . 2010; 88(5):390-4. doi: 10.2471/BLT.09.072686.
8. Mérol JC, Swierkosz F, Urwald O, Nasser T, Legros M. Acoustic comparison of esophageal versus tracheoesophageal speech. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 1999;120(4):249-52.
9. Pilsworth S. Routine use of nasendoscopy to enhance the speech and language therapist’sdecision- making process in surgical voice restoration. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg . 2011; 145(1):86-90. doi: 10.1177/0194599811401312.
10. Parrilla C, Longobardi Y, Paludetti G, Marenda ME, 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(4):270-276. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-N0587.