Perceptual evaluation of alaryngeal speech

The aim of this study was to compare the self-assessed vocal handicap of laryngectomees treated with three different communication methods: tracheoesophageal speech, esophageal speech and electrolarynx. Forty-eight patients, 40 males and 8 females, who had undergone total laryngectomy for laryngeal carcinoma were enrolled in the study. Depending on the voice restoration method, all patients were divided into three groups: 20 patients were tracheoesophageal speakers (group 1), 13 patients were esophageal speakers (group 2) and 15 patients were electrolaryngeal speakers (group 3). They autonomously completed the Croatian version of Voice Hendicap Index, a questionnaire that was developed to quantify the patient's perception of deficiency due to vocal dysfunction. Statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 13.0), and the data obtained with each group and scale were formally compared. 31.25% of patients rated their voice disorder as a minimum handicap, 54.16% of patients rated their voice disorder as a medium handicap, and 14.58% of them rated their voice disorder as a significant handicap. There are differences between each group, but differences were not statistically significant. No single method is considered to be the best for every patient. Selection of a method should be based on the input from the patient, surgeon and speech pathologist.