Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Esophageal speech (ES), tracheoesophageal speech (TES) and/or electrolarynx speech (ELS) are three speech rehabilitation methods which are commonly provided after total laryngectomy (TL). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate comparative acoustic, perceptual, and patient-reported outcomes for ES, TES, ELS and healthy speakers. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles could be included. In most studies, methodological quality was low. It is likely that an inclusion bias exists, many studies only included exceptional speakers. Significant better outcomes are reported for TES compared to ES for the acoustic parameters, fundamental frequency, maximum phonation time and intensity. Perceptually, TES is rated with a significant better voice quality and intelligibility than ES and ELS. None of the speech rehabilitation groups reported clearly better outcomes in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on speech outcomes after TL are flawed in design and represent weak levels of evidence. There is an urge for standardized measurement tools for evaluations of substitute voice speakers. TES is the favorable speech rehabilitation method according to acoustic and perceptual outcomes. All speaker groups after TL report a degree of voice handicap. Knowledge of caretakers and differences in health care and insurance systems play a role in the speech rehabilitation options that can be offered.
Sluis et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: