全喉切除安装Blom－Singer发音管的临床应用

目的：为无喉患者重建发音功能。方法：常规全喉切除后，切开咽缩肌在气管后壁做一长4mm横切口，切透气管食管间膜部，形成一气管瘘道，将Blom-Singer发音管安置在瘘道中，用手指堵压气管造口，即可发音。结果：31例中25例能发音，成功率为80．65％，发音音质好，流畅，时值长，最长者已3年，无需更换发音管。发音仍十分满意。结论：该手术是一种效果令人满意的全喉切除发音重建方法。     

咽食管括约肌切开术在喉全切除术后发音重建中的作用

目的：探讨咽食管括约肌切开术对减少咽食管括约肌失弛缓对喉全切除术后安装Blom-Singer发音管发音重建的影响。方法：喉全切除术后，咽食管括约肌收缩或是痉挛都会不同程度地影响食管的气流并阻碍发音。咽食管括约肌的解剖位置是环咽肌以及其上的下咽缩肌的一部分和颈段食管上段的一部分。手术操作是在喉全切除术中、术后于气管造瘘口外上方切除长5cm，宽1cm的咽食管括约肌。结果：33例喉全切除术的患者进行咽食管括约肌切开术后有32例发音成功，发音重建的成功率是97％。其中包括12例喉全切除术中I期进行环咽肌切开术，21例是Ⅱ期进行咽食管括约肌切开术的，后者又有9例是安装Blom-Singer发音管后发音不能再行咽食管括约肌切开术的。患者3年存活25例，5年存活18例。同期行喉全切除术和咽食管括约肌切开术的12例患者，Kaplan-Meier法统计3年生存率81．82％，5年生存率42．86％。结论：咽食管括约肌切开术能提高Blom-Singer发音管发音重建的成功率。     

Blom-Singer发音管在喉全切除术后的临床应用

目的观察喉全切除术后应用Blom-Singer发音管重建喉发声功能的效果。方法回顾性分析1994年9月～2003年8月15例喉全切除术后行Blom-Singer发音管重建喉发声功能患者的临床资料。结果15例患者中12例行Ⅰ期发音管重建术，10例手术成功(10／12，83．33％)；3例行Ⅱ期发音管重建术，其中2例手术成功，两种术式的总成功率为80％(12／15)。Ⅰ期手术失败2例，与气管食管壁分离过多有关；Ⅱ期手术失败1例，系环咽肌切断不完全所致。结论喉全切除术后应用Blom-Singer发音管重建喉发声功能是一种有效的发声重建方法，环咽肌切断及保留气管食管壁的完整是手术成功的美键。     

影响Blom-Singer发音管发声质量的原因分析

目的 了解影响Blom-Singer发音管发声障碍的各种相关因素。方法 回顾性分析1996年4月～2006年10月108例喉全切除术后行Blom-Singer发音管重建喉发声功能患者的临床资料,其中施行Ⅰ期Blom-Singer发声重建术96例,Ⅱ期Blom Singer发声重建术12例,并对其发声效果进行追踪观察。结果 96例行Ⅰ期发音管重建术中,22例发声质量差（22/96,23%）;12例行Ⅱ期发音管重建术中,8例发声质量差（8/12,67%）。两种术式的总失败率为（30/108,28%）。结论 Ⅰ期Blom-Singer发声重建术较Ⅱ期Blom-Singer发声重建术成功率高。术后发声质量的效果与环咽肌的处理、气管食管壁的完整性、气管造瘘口的大小、咽瘘、食管下咽腔狭窄及肺功能等因素密切相关。     

喉全切除后Blom—Singer技术发音重建的应用

从1997年开始，对9例喉全切除后行发音重建术，其中4例采用Blom-Singer技术，5例在Blom-Singer技术基础上进行改良，即在行气管食管穿刺术的同时，立即装上发音管。结果所做9例发音全部成功，随访6－27月，平均20个月后，采用听距法评定发音效果，行Blom-Singer技术者，Ⅰ级：2例：Ⅱ级：2例。改良法者，Ⅰ级：人例；Ⅱ级：3例。改良法缩短了手术时间，减少手术步骤，降低费用，发音效果一致。     

中晚期喉癌患者术后发音生存质量评估

目的 通过对中晚期喉癌患者行三种不同术式后的发音生存质量分析,指导喉癌治疗方案的选择.方法对30例喉次全切除患者、30例喉全切除未行发音重建患者、30例喉全切除行发音重建患者,采用修改后的美国密执安大学头颈癌患者生存质量量表（university of Michican head and neck quality of life,HNQOL）进行问卷调查,分析三种不同术式患者的生存质量及生存质量随时间发展的变化规律.结果喉全切除行发音重建组在语言交流、嗅觉情况、社会交往及娱乐工作状态方面与喉次全切除组比较无显著性差异,而未行发音重建组与喉次全切除组有显著性差异.结论喉全切除行发音重建可明显提高术后的生存质量.应积极通过临床治疗,心理治疗及社会干预帮助其康复,提高术后生存质量.     

喉全切除术后Blom-Singer发音管的临床应用

目的：分析Blom-Singer发音管在喉全切除术患者中的应用效果。方法：1995－1999年期间为18例因喉癌行喉全切除的患者安装了气管食管发音管，12例行一期发声重建术，6例行二期发声重建术，全部采用Blom-Singer发音管，结果：本组病例均随访3－5年，无死亡，本组成功者14例，成功率为77．8％，带管时间8－19月不等，平均为12月，换管次数最多的为6次。无严重并发症，失败者均为二期手术者，结论：凡喉全切除术者均可行一期发声重建术，二期手术的适应症必须严格控制，应重视术后发声训练，对于食管发声无效的喉全切除患者，气管食管发声重建术是一种有效的补充方法，能提高生活质量。     

下咽、颈段食管癌手术切除后保留喉功能与发声重建

目的：探讨下咽、颈段食管癌根治术患者喉功能保留与发声重建的手术方法。方法：对16例下咽、颈段食管癌患者手术切除肿瘤后，实施保留全喉及部分喉切除喉功能重建；全喉切除后Blom-Singer 1期、2期发声重建术，同时下咽及颈段食管缺损分别采用胃－咽吻合、前臂游离皮瓣、胸大肌肌皮瓣、胸三角皮瓣、胸锁乳突肌肌皮瓣，颈前肌皮瓣、喉气管粘膜瓣等方法进行整复。保留全喉8例，保留部分喉喉重建3例，全喉切除后行Blom-Singer发声重建1期4例，2期1例。结果：16例中除1例术后14d心脏病变发死亡外，均恢复了吞咽功能，13例恢复发声功能，6例恢复了全喉功能，2例恢复了部分喉功能（不能拔管）。5例行Blom-Singer发声重建者，均发声成功。结论：依据患者病变部位、肿瘤分期、身体状况、年龄等因素，切除肿瘤后采用不同的手术方法行喉功能保留及发声重建，可提高患者术后生存质量。     

黏膜管成形一期发音功能重建在晚期喉癌手术中的应用

目的 研究晚期喉癌切除一期发音功能重建.对失去喉部分切除机会的晚期喉癌患者用黏膜管成形法进行一期发音功能重建术.方法 1991年10月至2006年5月共行手术46例,男41例,女5例,平均年龄54岁.声门型喉癌17例,其中T3N0M0 12例,T3N1M0 5例;声门上型喉癌27例,其中T3N1M016例,T4N1M05例,13NOM06例;梨状窝癌2例,均为T4NI M0,侵及喉部并累及对侧.手术仅保留一侧残余杓状软骨并摘除,利用残余黏膜与延续到气管的黏膜瓣和下咽部黏膜缝合成黏膜管而重建发音功能.结果 46例患者有41例取得了良好的发音效果而无误咽.Kaplan-Meier法计算5年生存率为76%.结论 黏膜管成形法重建发音功能可使部分晚期喉癌患者在喉切除后用自身材料一期发音功能重建而取得较理想的发音和吞咽功能.     

喉全切除术后气管食管穿刺发声重建的远期效果

目的：探讨气管食管穿刺(TEP)安放Blom-Singer发音管发声重建在喉全切除术后患者中的远期效果。方法：回顾性分析134例资料完整的喉全切除术后TEP安放Blom-Singer发音管发声患者的临床资料。应用多维语音分析系统(MDVP)对其中18例发音管发声患者的声学参数进行检测分析。结果：所有病例均随访2～15年。1986～1989年12例中7例获得满意结果,成功率58．3％。1990年以后的122例中,114例效果满意,成功率93．4％,总成功率90．3％。MDVP检测的发音管发声主要声学参数值都远远偏离正常。常见并发症有瘘口肉芽增生,早期感染,气、食管瘘口过大出现漏液等。结论：TEP安放发音管,操作简单,并发症少,成功率高,质量好,远期效果稳定,是一种目前让无喉患者开口讲话较好的手术方法。咽、食管括约肌切开术能提高BlomSinger发音管发声重建的成功率。     

咽丛神经切断术在发音重建中的作用

目的 为解除咽缩肌的痉挛，提高喉全切除术后用发音管发音重建的成功率。方法 在一侧舌骨大角后内侧咽缩肌的后表面６．５ｍｍ左右，可找到咽丛神经支配咽下缩肌的主支或分支，将其切断。结果 １６例中１５例咽丛神经切断术后发音重建成功，成功率为９３．８％。结论 咽丛神经切断术取代咽缩肌切断术是可行的，咽丛神经切断术能提高Ｂｌｏｍ－Ｓｉｎｇｅｒ发音管发音重建的成功率，值得推广应用。     

咽丛神经切断术在发音重建中的作用

目的　为解除咽缩肌的痉挛 ,提高喉全切除术后用发音管发音重建的成功率。方法　在一侧舌骨大角后内侧咽缩肌的后表面 6 5mm左右 ,可找到咽丛神经支配咽下缩肌的主支或分支 ,将其切断。结果　 16例中 15例咽丛神经切断术后发音重建成功 ,成功率为 93 8%。结论　咽丛神经切断术取代咽缩肌切断术是可行的。咽丛神经切断术能提高Blom Singer发音管发音重建的成功率 ,值得推广应用。     

Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses

The aim of the study was to compare device life of more recent indwelling voice prostheses Provox Vega and Blom-Singer Dual Valve to device life of well-known standard devices (Provox 2, Blom-Singer Classic). In a prospective, non-randomised study, device life of Blom-Singer Classic, Blom-Singer Dual Valve, Provox2, Provox Vega and Provox ActiValve voice prostheses was recorded in a group of 102 laryngectomised patients. In total 749 voice prosthesis were included. Average overall life time was 108 days, median 74 days. The prosthesis with the longest dwell time was the Provox ActiValve (median 291 days). Provox Vega had longer device life compared with Provox2 (median 92 days vs 66 days; p = 0.006) and compared with Blom-Singer Classic (median 92 days vs 69 days; p = 0.004). In conclusion, device lifetimes of Provox Vega and ActiValve were better than those of Provox2 and the Blom-Singer Classic. New voice prostheses, with a defined valve opening pressure (Provox Vega, Provox ActiValve, Blom-Singer Dual Valve) had longer lifetimes than prostheses without a defined opening pressure (Blom-Singer Classic and Provox 2).     

Voice restoration with voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy. Assessment of survival time of 378 Provox-1, Provox-2 and Blom-Singer voice prosthesis]

Voice Restoration with Voice Prosthesis after Total Laryngectomy. Assessment of Survival Time of 378 Provox-1, Provox-2 and Blom-Singer Voice Prosthesis. BACKGROUND: Indwelling voice prosthesis are used in Trier for voice restoration after total laryngectomy since 1991. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD: To assess the voice prosthesis survival times the patients of the years 1993-1999 are assessed retrospectively. PARTICIPANTS: 58 patients provided with indwelling voice prosthesis were seen regularly at follow-up. 378 prosthesis were changed. Provox 1, Provox 2 and Blom-Singer-Prostheses were used. RESULTS: The average survival lifetime of the prosthesis was 224 days for Provox-1, 96 days for Provox-2 and 107 days for Blom-Singer respectively. There is no significant difference found between Provox-2 and Blom-Singer Prosthesis. The survival times of the Provox-1 Prosthesis is significant longer. CONCLUSION: Using indwelling voice prosthesis for voice restoration after total laryngectomy an average survival time of the prosthesis of three months can be expected. There are relevant individual differences. Provox-1 Prosthesis have a significantly longer survival time, but as they are more difficult to handle they are not suitable for routine use. The indication for the choice between Blom-Singer or Provox-2 Prosthesis should be influenced by the surgeons' experience.     

Clinical use of a voice prosthesis with a flap valve containing silver oxide (Blom-Singer Advantage), biofilm formation, in-situ lifetime and indication

BACKGROUND: Fungal growth and the resulting leakage through an indwelling voice prosthesis remains the most frequent reason of prosthesis failure and renewal. In some patients leakage caused by fungal growth occurs in very short intervals (below 12 weeks in-situ lifetime) and causes frequent treatments and high costs. METHODS: The Blom-Singer(R) Advantage voice prosthesis is a new prosthesis type with a modified flange design, a flap valve containing 7 % silver oxide in the silicon matrix and is expected to be resistant against biofilm formation and fungal growth. PATIENTS: In a clinical trial we used the Blom-Singer(R) Advantage prosthesis in 33 patients with short in-situ lifetimes of their voice prosthesis and analysed the effects on in-situ lifetime and complications statistically. RESULTS: The clinical use of the Blom-Singer(R) Advantage prosthesis was similar to other types of indwelling voice prosthesis (Provox(R) II, Blom-Singer Indwelling(R)) and did not cause any special problems. Prosthesis specific side effects (i. e. allergy against silver oxide) did not occur. Statistical analysis of the aquired data showed an interindividually changing, but significantly longer in-situ lifetime for the Blom-Singer(R) Advantage prosthesis. The mean device lifetime increased from 36 days (median 36 days) to a mean lifetime of 110 days (median 87 days) with the use of the Blom-Singer(R) Advantage prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Using a voice prosthesis with a valve containing silver oxide can normalize and even increase the in-situ lifetime in patients with frequent changing procedures caused by fungal growth on the valve. Therefore we recommend the use of this type of voice prosthesis for those patients as reduction of costs and effort results.     

气管食管裂隙状瘘发音重建术的声学分析

目的 客观评价气管食管裂隙状瘘发音重建术后的发音效果，并以此指导临床工作。方法 对喉全切除术后I期与Ⅱ期气管食管裂隙状瘘发音患者、食管发音患者、安装Blom—Singer发音钮患者以及健康人分别进行语音测试，分析7项客观声学参数，比较发音效果。结果 经统计学t检验，气管食管裂隙状瘘语音最长发音时间短于健康人，明显长于食管音，但和Blom—Singer发音钮语音差异无显著性；其声音的强度和健康人及Blom—Singer发音钮差异无显著性，明显高于食管音；其基频明显低于健康人；其频率微扰和振幅微扰明显高于健康人，而明显低于食管发音，与Blom—Singer发音钮语音差异无显著性；其共振峰频率和能量仅在F1共振峰能量上明显高于食管音，其余各频率上差异均无显著性。虽然喉全切除I期气管食管裂隙状瘘发音重建术中制作帽状气室，而Ⅱ期发音重建术中不制作帽状气室，但两者语音声学分析各参数间差异均无显著性。结论气管食管瘘语音比食管音接近健康人语音，能满足日常生活需要。气管食管裂隙状瘘发音重建术中不制作帽状气室不影响术后的发音。     

Delayed diagnosis of tracheoesophageal prosthesis aspiration

In 1980, Singer and Blom published the results of their study on use of the tracheoesophageal puncture prosthesis for restoration of voice after total laryngectomy. Since then, the placement of tracheoesophageal puncture prostheses has been an integral part of rehabilitation after laryngectomy. Complications of this procedure have been recognized and are usually minimal. Inadvertent aspiration of the prosthesis is rare. Usually, patients seek help immediately after the incident. We report a case of unnoticed aspiration of a Blom-Singer prosthesis in a patient with a laryngectomy.     

Surgical voice restoration with the Blom-Singer prosthesis following laryngopharyngoesophagectomy and pharyngogastric anastomosis

Surgical voice restoration using the Blom-Singer technique is a well-established procedure in patients who have undergone simple laryngectomy. Operations for hypopharyngeal carcinoma are more extensive and require reconstruction using regional skin or myocutaneous flaps, or reanastomosis with colon, jejunum, or stomach. We report the use of the Blom-Singer prosthesis in four patients who had undergone pharyngogastric repair following laryngopharyngoesophagectomy and who had failed to achieve a satisfactory voice. All patients initially developed good speech using the prosthesis. Two patients subsequently had their prostheses removed: one because of recurrent malignant disease and one because the procedure had not significantly altered the quality of the voice. The remaining two patients have continued to use the device at 2 and 5 years after insertion with good voice production.