Validity and reliability of the Group for Learning Useful and Performant Swallowing (GLUPS) tool.

INTRODUCTION: To validate the Group for Learning Useful and Performant Swallowing (GLUPS), a clinical tool dedicated to videofluoroscopy swallowing study (VFSS). METHODS: Forty-five individuals were recruited from January 2022 to March 2023 from the Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery of University Hospital Saint-Pierre (Brussels, Belgium). Subjects underwent VFSS, which was rated with GLUPS tool by two blinded otolaryngologists and one speech-therapist. VFSS were rated twice with GLUPS within a 7-day period to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients and twenty-one controls completed the evaluations. The internal consistency (α = 0.745) and the test-retest reliability (rs = 0.941; p = 0.001) were adequate. GLUPS reported a high external validity regarding the significant correlation with the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (rs = 0.551; p = 0.001). Internal validity was adequate, because GLUPS score was significant higher in patients compared to controls (6.21 ± 4.42 versus 2.09 ± 2.00; p = 0.001). Interrater reliability did not report significant differences in the GLUPS sub- and total score among the independent judges. The mean GLUPS score of individuals without any evidence of VFSS abnormalities was 2.09/23 (95% CI 1.23-2.95), which supported that a GLUPS score ≥ 3.0 is suggestive of pathological VFSS. CONCLUSIONS: GLUPS is a clinical instrument documenting the abnormal findings of oral and pharyngeal phases at the VFSS. GLUPS demonstrated high reliability and excellent criterion-based validity. GLUPS may be used in clinical practice for the swallowing evaluation at the VFSS.

Tele-rehabilitation in voice disorders during the pandemic: a consensus paper from the French Society of Phoniatrics and Laryngology.

OBJECTIVES: To establish a consensus protocol for telerehabilitation in speech therapy for voice disorders. METHODS: The study was conducted according to a modified Delphi method. Twenty speech therapist or laryngologist experts of the French Society of Phoniatrics and Laryngology assessed 24 statements of voice telerehabilitation with a 10-point visual analog scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree). The statements were accepted if more than 80% of the experts rated the item with a score of ≥ 8/10. The statements with ≥ 8/10 score by 60-80% of experts were improved and resubmitted to voting until they were validated or rejected. RESULTS: The French Society of Phoniatrics and Laryngology experts validated 10, 6, and 2 statements after the first, second and third voting round, respectively. Seven statements did not reach agreement threshold and were rejected. The validated statements included recommendations for setting (N = 4), medical/speech history (N = 2), subjective voice evaluations (N = 3), objective voice quality measurements (N = 3), and voice rehabilitation (N = 5). The experts agreed for a follow-up consisting of combined telerehabilitation and in-office rehabilitation. The final protocol may be applied in context of pandemic but could be assessed out of pandemic period for patients located in rural regions. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study established the first telerehabilitation protocol of the French Society of Phoniatrics and Laryngology for patients with voice disorders. Future controlled studies are needed to assess its feasibility, reliability, and the patient perception about telerehabilitation versus in-office rehabilitation.

Post-Laryngectomy Voice Prosthesis Changes by Speech-Language Pathologists: Preliminary Results.

BACKGROUND: In the present study, we assess the feasibility and success outcomes of voice prosthesis (VP) changes when performed by a speech-language pathologist (SLP). METHODS: Patients treated with total laryngectomy (TL) from January 2020 to December 2020 were prospectively recruited from our medical center. Patients benefited from tracheoesophageal puncture. The VP changes were performed by the senior SLP and the following data were collected for each VP change: date of placement; change or removal; VP type and size; reason for change or removal; and use of a washer for periprosthetic leakage. A patient-reported outcome questionnaire including six items was proposed to patients at each VP change. Items were assessed with a 10-point Likert-scale. RESULTS: Fifty-two VP changes were performed by the senior SLP during the study period. The mean duration of the SLP consultation, including patient history, examination and VP change procedure, was 20 min (range: 15-30). The median prosthesis lifetime was 88 days. The main reasons for VP changes were transprosthetic (n = 34; 79%) and periprosthetic (n = 7; 21%) leakages. SLP successfully performed all VP changes. He did not change one VP, but used a periprosthetic silastic to stop the periprosthetic leakages. In two cases, SLP needed the surgeon's examination to discuss the following indication: implant mucosa inclusion and autologous fat injection. The patient satisfaction was high according to the speed and the quality of care by the SLP. CONCLUSIONS: The delegation of VP change from the otolaryngologist-head and neck surgeon to the speech-language pathologist (SLP) may be achieved without significant complications. The delegation of VP change procedure to SLP may be interesting in some rural regions with otolaryngologist shortages.

Surgical and oncological outcomes of transoral robotic total laryngectomy: A case series.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the oncological, functional and voice rehabilitation outcomes of transoral robotic surgery for total laryngectomy (TORS-TL). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients treated by TORS-TL was conducted at a single academic medical center. The following outcomes were studied: indication; average robotic set-up and operative times; mean estimated blood loss; postoperative complications; re-feeding features; mean hospital stay; need of adjuvant therapy and voice rehabilitation type. RESULTS: TORS-TL was performed in 10 patients for the following indications: nonfunctional larynx (N = 2); low-grade cricoid chondrosarcoma (N = 3) and recurrent laryngeal cancer after (chemo) radiation (N = 5). Two patients were excluded because the larynx was not exposable. Average robotic set-up and operative times were 20 and 278 min, respectively. The mean estimated blood loss was 50 mL. The mean hospital stay was 13.9 days (8-28 days). There was no local recurrence in patients operated for cancer recurrence (N = 5) 5 years after the surgery. Distant metastases occurred in one patient. A patient with laryngeal chondrosarcoma experienced local failure 3 years after TORS-TL. The voice rehabilitation consisted of esophageal voice (N = 2) and tracheoesophageal prosthesis (Provox®, N = 8). The main reasons for prosthesis replacement were transprosthetic (79%) and periprosthetic leaks (21%). The median lifespan of prostheses was 81 days. CONCLUSION: TORS-TL may be a safe and effective surgical approach for selected surgical indications. Future controlled studies are needed to determine additional indications and limitations of this procedure.