Influence of timing, radiation, and reconstruction on complications and speech outcomes with tracheoesophageal puncture

Sarah A. Gitomer, Katherine A. Hutcheson, Brandon L. Christianson, Madeleine B. Samuelson, Denise A. Barringer, Dianna B. Roberts, Amy C. Hessel, Randal S. Weber, Jan S. Lewin, Mark E. Zafereo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

36 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: We evaluated the impact of radiation, reconstruction, and timing of tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) on complications and speech outcomes. Methods: Retrospective review identified 145 patients who underwent TEP between 2003 and 2007. Results: Ninety-nine patients (68%) had primary and 46 (32%) had secondary TEP, with complications occurring in 65% and 61%, respectively (p =.96). Twenty-nine patients (20%) had major complications (18 primary and 11 secondary; p =.42). Ninety-four patients (65%) had pre-TEP radiation, 39 (27%) post-TEP radiation, and 12 (8%) no radiation. With patients grouped by TEP timing and radiation history, there was no difference in complications, fluency, or TEP use. With mean 4.7-year follow-up, 82% primary and 85% secondary used TEP for primary communication (p =.66). Free-flap patients used TEP more commonly for primary communication after secondary versus primary TEP (90% vs 50%; p =.02). Conclusion: Primary and secondary tracheoesophageal speakers experience similar high rates of complications. Extent of pharyngeal reconstruction, rather than radiation, may be more important in selection of TEP timing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1765-1771
Number of pages7
JournalHead and Neck
Volume38
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2016

Keywords

  • complications
  • speech outcomes
  • tracheoesophageal prosthesis
  • tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Influence of timing, radiation, and reconstruction on complications and speech outcomes with tracheoesophageal puncture'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this