Comprehensive Evaluation of Vocal Outcomes and Quality of Life after Total Laryngectomy and Voice Restoration with J-Flap and Tracheoesophageal Puncture

Simple Summary Laryngopharyngectomy is still the treatment of choice in locally advanced pharyngolaryngeal tumors not eligible for organ preservation protocols. Loss of speech capacity has been reported as one of the factors that most affect the patient-reported quality of life. Thus, the reconstructive goals are restoring the pharynx and possibly the voice in such a scenario. For decades, tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) has allowed proper voice rehabilitation; however, TEP has a non-neglectable financial expenditure and complication rate. Therefore, we recently reported a novel flap design and surgical technique that shares the same principles of TEP, without the need to change any device over time, named J-flap. This study aimed to analyze both techniques' subjective and objective vocal outcomes and their impact on overall and voice-related quality of life. Background: Tracheoesophageal puncture with a voice prosthesis is the gold standard for speech rehabilitation in patients that receive a laryngopharyngectomy. However, a novel surgical technique, using a tubularized anterolateral tight flap, named "J-flap," has been demonstrated to produce adequate voice restoration. We aimed to compare the outcomes and the quality of life of patients who underwent voice rehabilitation with both techniques. Methods: We enrolled patients that underwent laryngopharyngectomy and voice restoration surgery. The control group received a tracheoesophageal puncture with a voice prosthesis, while the study group received J-flap reconstruction. A total of 20 patients received voice prosthesis rehabilitation, while 18 received J-flap reconstruction. Speech and vocal outcomes and quality of life metrics were collected. Results: The objective phonatory performances and the acoustic voice analysis did not outline a significant difference. Speech pathologists judged the consonant pronunciation in the J-flap group as less accurate (p < 0.001). The voice handicap index revealed a moderate impairment for the J-flap group (p < 0.001). Quality of life scores were higher for the voice prosthesis group. Conclusion: Voice prostheses and J-flaps share similar objective phonatory outcomes. Quality of life was more impaired in the J-flap group. In our view, these two techniques possess complementary characteristics in clinical practice, taking into account health care system regulations and patients' social background.