TY - JOUR
AU - 
AB - Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol (2013) 270:1447–1453 DOI 10.1007/s00405-012-2154-9 HEA D AN D N ECK • • Kelli L. Hancock Nadine R. Lawson Elizabeth C. Ward Received: 18 April 2012 / Accepted: 6 August 2012 / Published online: 1 September 2012 The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Device life of the Provox Vega Indwelling TE speech over other available methods of alaryngeal voice prosthesis is as yet untested outside Europe. The speech include a more natural sounding voice, superior current study examined device life and reasons for voice quality, improved success rates, and more immediate replacement within an Australian clinical setting. Twenty- voice rehabilitation [1–6]. One of the few limitations of TE three participants were monitored for device life and rea- speech is the need for ongoing replacement of the voice sons for replacement. Main outcome measure was days to prosthesis by either the clinician (for indwelling devices) or failure of initial device. Average device life and reasons for the patient (for non-indwelling devices). The most common replacement were secondary measures. Initial device life reason for replacement of an indwelling device is leakage data revealed 67 % had functioning devices at 3 months, through 
TI - Device life of the Provox Vega voice prosthesis
JF - European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
DO - 10.1007/s00405-012-2154-9
DA - 2012-09-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/unpaywall/device-life-of-the-provox-vega-voice-prosthesis-6WZn7jddrO
DP - DeepDyve
ER -