Experience with Barton button and peristomal breathing valve attachments for hands-free tracheoesophageal speech

Background Tracheostoma breathing valves permit hands‐free tracheoesophageal (TE) speech production; however, few laryngectomees routinely use them because of problems with attachment. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 45 TE speakers to determine the success rate and factors associat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Head & neck 2000-03, Vol.22 (2), p.142-148
Main Authors: Lewin, Jan S., Lemon, James, Bishop-Leone, Julie K., Leyk, Stacy, Martin, Jack W., Gillenwater, Ann M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biological and medical sciences
Equipment Design
Female
Head and neck surgery. Maxillofacial surgery. Dental surgery. Orthodontics
Humans
Laryngeal Neoplasms - surgery
Laryngectomy
Male
Medical sciences
Patient Satisfaction
Respiration
Retrospective Studies
speech
Speech, Esophageal - instrumentation
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Surgery of the upper aerodigestive tract
Surgical Stomas
tracheoesophageal
tracheostoma
Tracheostomy - instrumentation
valve
Voice Disorders - etiology
Voice Disorders - rehabilitation
Voice Quality
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Tracheostoma breathing valves permit hands‐free tracheoesophageal (TE) speech production; however, few laryngectomees routinely use them because of problems with attachment. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 45 TE speakers to determine the success rate and factors associated with successful breathing valve use based on attachment. All patients attempted to use a tracheostoma breathing valve with either a standard or customized peristomal housing, or a standard or customized Barton button. Device selection was based on inspection of the patient's neck and peristomal contour. Six to eight consecutive hours of attachment defined success. Results Overall, 9% of subjects succeeded with any peristomal attachment as compared to 68% with either a standard (57%) or customized (85%) Barton button. Smooth stomal contour, a contiguous stomal lip, and correct button length were important for successful Barton button use. Conclusions Standard or customized Barton buttons offer excellent alternatives to peristomal housing attachments for hands‐free TE speech in select patients. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Head Neck 22: 142–148, 2000.
ISSN:1043-3074
1097-0347
DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0347(200003)22:2<142::AID-HED5>3.0.CO;2-G