Cargando…
Cost-Effectiveness Study of Double-Flange Voice Prostheses in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Leakage in Laryngectomized Patients
Background: Tracheoesophageal speech with a voice prosthesis is considered the rehabilitation treatment of choice in laryngectomized patients. The main reasons for prosthesis failure are endoprosthetic leakage and periprosthetic leakage. The Provox XtraSeal(®) stent incorporates an additional double...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381411/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37511677 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13071064 |
Sumario: | Background: Tracheoesophageal speech with a voice prosthesis is considered the rehabilitation treatment of choice in laryngectomized patients. The main reasons for prosthesis failure are endoprosthetic leakage and periprosthetic leakage. The Provox XtraSeal(®) stent incorporates an additional double flange on the esophageal side to prevent periprosthetic leakage. The objective of this study is to compare the duration and costs of the Provox Vega(®) and Provox XtraSeal(®) prostheses used in these patients in a tertiary university hospital. Materials and methods: A prospective crossover case study of laryngectomees with Provox Vega(®) who underwent Provox XtraSeal(®) placement due to recurrent periprosthetic leaks and decreased theoretical prosthesis life. The duration and possible factors affecting voice prostheses were studied using Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression. A cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System with an incremental cost-effectiveness calculation. Results: A total of 38 patients were recruited, 35 men and 3 women, with a mean age of 66.26 ± 9.36 years old. Information was collected from 551 voice prostheses, 484 Provox Vega(®) and 68 Provox XtraSeal(®). The mean duration of Provox Vega(®) was 119.75 ± 148.8 days and that of Provox XtraSeal(®) was 181.99 ± 166.07 days (p = 0.002). The most frequent reason for replacement was endoprosthetic leakage in both groups: 283 (60.86%) in the case of Provox Vega(®) and 29 (48.33%) in that of XtraSeal(®) (p < 0.000). To obtain no cost differences (ICE ~ 0) between Provox Vega and Provox XtraSeal, the latter should cost EUR 551.63. Conclusions: The Provox XtraSeal(®) is a cost-effective option in patients with increased prosthesis replacements due to periprosthetic leakage, reducing the number of replacements, increasing the duration of the prosthesis, and providing savings compared to Provox Vega(®). |
---|