Tracheoesophageal voice was considered good in 13 cases (72.2%), moderate in 4 (22.2%)and poor in 1 (5.6%); esophageal speech, good in 2 (16.7%), moderate in 8 (66.6%) and poor in 2 (16.7%); electrolarynx, goodin 1 (9.1%), moderate in 9 (81.8%) and poor in 1 (9.1%); non-vocal communication, 100% poor. Total range of QLQ score variedfrom 8.3 to 100 (median, 75). Total QLQ scores were not associated with the effectiveness of communication (p=0.2512).
Conclusion:
Tracheoesophageal voice was more effective than esophageal speech or electrolarynx, but surprisingly alaryngealcommunication was not considered by the patients essential to maintain or improve long- term quality of life.