Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Post-Laryngectomy: It’s Hard to Swallow

An Australian Study of Prevalence and Self-reports of Swallowing Function After a Total Laryngectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Dysphagia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The prevalence of swallowing disorders (dysphagia) following a total laryngectomy remains unknown, with estimates varying from 17 to 70%. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and nature of self-reported dysphagia following a total laryngectomy across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. A secondary aim was to document the effect of dysphagia on the respondents’ social activities and participation. A questionnaire battery, with a prepaid envelope for return, was sent to all laryngectomy members (n = 197) of the Laryngectomee Association of NSW. One hundred twenty questionnaires (61%) were completed and returned. Dysphagia was self-reported by 71.8% of the cohort. In this cohort with dysphagia, the most commonly reported features included an increased time required to swallow, a need for fluids to wash down a bolus, and avoidance of certain food consistencies. Severe distress was reportedly associated with dysphagia for 39.7% of these respondents and prevented 57% of them from participating in social activities, such as eating at friends’ houses and/or at restaurants. The prevalence of self-reported dysphagia following total laryngectomy in this Australian study was 72%. Dysphagia can result in laryngectomees making significant changes to their diets and it has a marked impact on their activities and social participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Balfe DM. Dysphagia after laryngeal surgery: radiologic assessment. Dysphagia. 1990;5:20–34. doi:10.1007/BF02407390.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Maclean J, Cotton S, Perry A. Variation in surgical methods used for total laryngectomy in Australia. J Laryngol Otol. 2008;122:728–32. doi:10.1017/S0022215108002119.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheesman AD. Surgical management of the patient. In: Edels Y, editor. Laryngectomy: diagnosis to rehabilitation. London: Croom Helm; 1983. p. 42–3.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Edels Y. Laryngectomy: Rehabilitation and surgical voice restoration. The Royal Marsden School of Cancer Nursing and Rehabilitation, Coursework notes, 2007.

  5. Cheesman AD. Surgical management of pharyngeal constrictor muscle hypertonicity. In: Blom ED, Singer MI, Hamaker RC, editors. Tracheoesophageal voice restoration following total laryngectomy. Palo Alto, CA: Singular Publishing Group; 1998. p. 33–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Watts K. Swallowing difficulties experienced by people who have undergone a total laryngectomy for head and neck cancer. Unpublished honours thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 2006.

  7. Ward EC, Bishop B, Frisby J, Stevens M. Swallowing outcomes following laryngectomy and pharyngolaryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128:181–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ackerstaff AH, Hilgers FJM, Aaronson NK, Balm AJM. Communication, functional disorders and lifestyle changes after total laryngectomy. Clin Otolaryngol. 1994;19:295–300. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2273.1994.tb01234.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Perry AR, Shaw MA, Cotton S. An evaluation of functional outcomes (speech, swallowing) in patients attending speech pathology after head and neck cancer treatment(s): Results and analysis at 12 months post intervention. J Laryngol Otol. 2003;117:368–81. doi:10.1258/002221503321626410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Malcolm L. An examination of swallowing outcomes in patients who have undergone a larynx preservation protocol for treatment of advanced laryngeal cancer. Unpublished honours thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 2003.

  11. Armstrong E, Isman K, Dooley P, Brine D, Riley N, Dentice R, King S, Khanbhai F. An investigation into the quality of life of individuals after laryngectomy. Head Neck 2001;23(1):16–24.dio:10.1002/1097-0347(200101)23:1<16::AID-HED3>3.0.CO;2-4.

  12. Babor T, Higgins-Biddle J, Saunders J, Monteiro M. AUDIT: The alcohol use disorders identification test: Guidelines for use in primary care. 2nd ed. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_MSD_MSB_01.6a.pdf (accessed 20 June 2007).

  13. Darke S, Ward J, Hall W, Heather N, Wodak A. The opiate treatment index, 1991. Available at http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/opiatetreatmentindex (accessed 20 June 2007).

  14. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Surveys. In: Foundations of clinical research applications to practice. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000. p. 285–316.

  15. Boyatzis R. Thematic analysis and code development: Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. p. 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Holleb AI, Fink DJ, Murphy GP, editors. American Cancer Society Textbook of Clinical Oncology. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 1991. p. 306.

  17. Singer MI, DeLassus Gress C. Secondary tracheosophageal voice restoration. In: Blom ED, Singer MI, Hamaker RC, editors. Tracheoesophageal voice restoration following total laryngectomy. Palo Alto, CA: Singular Publishing Group; 1998. p. 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Frowen J, Perry A. Reasons for success or failure in surgical voice restoration after total laryngectomy: an Australian study. J Laryngol Otol. 2001;115(5):393–9. doi:10.1258/0022215011907956.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cancer Institute New South Wales morbidity and mortality report, 2004. Available at http://www.cancerinstitute.org.au/cancer_inst/publications/pdfs/IncidenceMortalityReport2004 (accessed 30 May 2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of a wider research study that is generously funded through the Laryngectomee Association of NSW as part of Julia Maclean’s PhD studies at La Trobe University, Melbourne.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Care Centre, St. George Hospital, Short Street, Kogarah, NSW, 2217, Australia

    Julia Maclean

  2. ORYGEN Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Susan Cotton

  3. School of Human Communication Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Alison Perry

Authors
  1. Julia Maclean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Cotton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alison Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Maclean.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maclean, J., Cotton, S. & Perry, A. Post-Laryngectomy: It’s Hard to Swallow. Dysphagia 24, 172–179 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-008-9189-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-008-9189-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation