• Users Online: 897
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 67-74

The role of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in the assessment of pediatric dysphagia


Unit of Phoniatrics, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Date of Submission22-May-2015
Date of Acceptance28-Aug-2015
Date of Web Publication5-Feb-2016

Correspondence Address:
Ahmed-Abdelhamid
Unit of Phoniatrics, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1012-5574.175863

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background
Swallowing is a basic, life-sustaining function that involves interplay between two distinct but related phenomena, airway protection and bolus transport. Pediatric dysphagia is one of the most important symptoms to be assessed and managed. The standard fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) protocol of Langmore (2001) was designed to assess dysphagia on all populations.
Aim
The aim of this work was to clarify the role of FEES in the diagnosis of pediatric dysphagia and the signs related to it.
Study design
This was a retrospective study that was conducted to assess pediatric dysphagia using FEES as a clinical diagnostic tool.
Participants and methods
The study included 64 children (38 male, 26 female). Of them, 32 patients were suffering from difficulty in swallowing of different degrees and 32 were controls (they were not suffering from any difficulty in swallowing). The mean age in months for symptomatic children was 41.47 ± 36.25 and the mean age in months for control cases was 42.08 ± 35.61. The examination was carried out using FEES applying the standard FEES protocol of Langmore (2001).
Results
Application of the standard FEES protocol of Langmore (2001) showed highly related signs of pediatric dysphagia, such as handling of secretions, pharyngeal function in part I and timing of the bolus flow/initiation of the swallow, structural movements during the swallow, and residue after the swallow and between swallows in part II.
Conclusion and recommendation
There are more common signs related to pediatric dysphagia than others and should be considered in any therapeutic program for overcoming dysphagia in children. Laryngomalacia is a structural disorder causing pediatric dysphagia in a considerable number of children. The standard FEES protocol should be applied on a larger number of pediatric populations with different disorders.

Keywords: fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, pediatric dysphagia, swallowing


How to cite this article:
AA, Sarwat SA. The role of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in the assessment of pediatric dysphagia. Egypt J Otolaryngol 2016;32:67-74

How to cite this URL:
AA, Sarwat SA. The role of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in the assessment of pediatric dysphagia. Egypt J Otolaryngol [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Sep 17];32:67-74. Available from: http://www.ejo.eg.net/text.asp?2016/32/1/67/175863


  Introduction Top


Swallowing is a basic, life-sustaining function. It is an innate ability present in the developing fetus [1] . Swallowing is so natural that we do it ~580 times daily even without thinking about it [2] .

There are specific physiological components of normal swallow that occur in a series of unfolding stages called phases.

  1. The oral phase: this phase is subdivided into two phases


    1. The oral preparatory phase.
    2. The oral transport phase.
  2. The pharyngeal phase.
  3. The esophageal phase.
Any change or damage that occurs in any of the sensory or motor events that comprise the oral preparatory, oral transport, and pharyngeal stages of swallowing causes difficulty in moving the food from the mouth to the stomach, or what is called dysphagia [3] .

Causes of pediatric dysphagia

  1. Structural etiologies (e.g. craniofacial anomalies and laryngomalacia).
  2. Neurologic etiologies (e.g. prematurity and cerebral palsy).
  3. Respiratory compromises (cardiac, pulmonary, or airway anomalies).
  4. Gastrointestinal causes (mucosal, anatomical, and functional).
  5. Maladaptive feeding behaviors [4] .
Dysphagia is not a disease, but rather a symptom that results from an underlying etiology or cause. Swallowing impairments are frequently classified in the clinical setting on the basis of three factors:

  1. The extent of oral, pharyngeal, or esophageal phase deficits.
  2. The underlying pathology or cause.
  3. The severity of the underlying disorder.
In children, the purpose of swallowing assessment and treatment is designed to prevent the development of more costly medical complications, including malnutrition and pneumonia. Identifying strategies to keep the child orally fed and able to maintain safe and adequate oral nutrition and hydration can achieve major cost saving in the healthcare system.

A fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) was described in 1988 by Langmore and colleagues as a procedure to assess oropharyngeal dysphagia. Initially, it was presented as an alternative to the fluoroscopy procedure, when it was not available. Over the years, endoscopy has become a standard tool for diagnosing and treating dysphagia [5] . Phoniatricians and speech-language pathologists use endoscopy to diagnose dysphagia in children, to assess the nature of the problem, and to guide its dietary and behavioral management.

Indications of pediatric fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing examination [5]

  1. Patient has never eaten orally, or has been maintained on enteral feedings for an extended period and the need to assess readiness for oral feeding.
  2. Patient has a known or suspected structural abnormality of the pharynx or the larynx.
  3. Patient is a surgical candidate for reconstruction of structural abnormality involving the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, trachea, or esophagus.
  4. Previous abnormal video fluoroscopic swallowing study and the need to assess the airway protection further and formulate strategies to improve safety of the swallowing.
  5. Suspected difficulty with secretion management.
  6. Patient cannot be transferred to radiology for videofluoroscopy.
  7. Patient cannot be positioned adequately for fluoroscopic viewing.
Epidemiologic data on the incidence and prevalence of feeding and swallowing disorders in pediatric populations are limited. However, the prevalence of feeding problems in typically developing children has been estimated to be in the range of 25-40% and significantly higher in children with developmental delays [6] . The incidence of dysphagia is unknown; however; there is a general agreement that the incidence of swallowing dysfunction is increasing [7],[8] .

Langmore [5] established her protocol for dysphagia assessment through FEES examination. This protocol may help in discovering the signs of dysphagia in children and which of them has the most important role in inducing difficulty in swallowing in those children.


  Aim of the work Top


The aim of this study was to clarify the role of FEES in the diagnosis of pediatric dysphagia and the signs related to it.


  Participants and methods Top


This retrospective study assessed the signs of dysphagia in children. The study included 64 children (38 male, 26 female) from the Unit of Phoniatrics, Ain Shams University Hospitals. Of them, 32 were suffering from difficulty in swallowing of different degrees and 32 were controls (they were not suffering from any difficulty in swallowing). The mean age in months for symptomatic children was 41.47 ± 36.25 and the mean age in months for controls was 42.08 ± 35.61. All candidates were recruited from Ain shams University Hospitals from March 2012 until August 2014 after obtaining consent from their parents. All candidates were evaluated according to Ain Shams Phoniatric Unit's protocol for dysphagia assessment. All participants were subjected to examination using FEES applying the standard FEES protocol of Langmore (2001).

The standard FEES protocol of Langmore (2001) consists of two parts:

  1. Part I consists of assessment of the anatomy and the sensorimotor function of the base of the tongue and the pharyngeal and the laryngeal structure. Parameters such as range or amplitude, symmetry, and briskness of movement can be assessed through specific tasks given to the patient, and the following could be observed: velopharyngeal closure, appearance of the hypopharynx and the larynx at rest, handling of secretions, the base of the tongue, the pharyngeal function, the laryngeal function, and sensory testing.
  2. Part II involves the delivery of food and liquid to directly assess the swallowing of these materials. Throughout part II FEES examination, the examiner should comment on the following: the oral preparatory stage, the oral transit time, timing of the bolus flow/initiation of the swallow, adequacy of structural movements during the swallow, penetration/aspiration before and at the onset of the swallow, residue/aspiration after the swallow and between swallows, hypopharyngeal reflux, and sensations.
The assessment was performed by two expert phoniatricians and the results were obtained. Thus, we can compare children with symptoms of dysphagia and control candidates according to the signs of the standard FEES protocol mentioned before.

Score calculation

  1. A score for part I assessment was calculated by adding up values of the following variables: velopharyngeal closure, appearance of the hypopharynx and the larynx at rest, handling of secretions, the base of the tongue, the pharyngeal function, the laryngeal function, and sensory testing. Each variable was given a value of 1 for normal finding and 0 for abnormal finding, yielding a total score of 7.
  2. A score for part II assessment was calculated by adding up values of the following variables: the oral preparatory stage, the oral transit time, timing of the bolus flow/initiation of the swallow, adequacy of structural movements during the swallow, penetration/aspiration before and at the onset of the swallow, residue/aspiration after the swallow and between swallows, hypopharyngeal reflux, and sensations. Each variable was given a value of 1 for normal finding and 0 for abnormal finding, yielding a total score of 10.
  3. Scores were then used for correlations.

  Results Top


Both cases and controls were matched as regards sex (P = 0.611) and age (P = 0.846). There was no significant difference between cases and controls as regards sex and age [Table 1].
Table 1 Comparison between cases and controls as regards sex and age

Click here to view


Results as regards sex

  1. There was no significant difference between the number of male patients among cases (20; 62.5%) and those among controls (18; 56.25%).
  2. There was no significant difference between the number of female patients among cases (12; 37.5%) and those among controls (14; 43.75%).
Results as regards age

The correlation of the mean age in months between cases (41.19 ± 41.79) and controls (49.19 ± 49.53) showed no significant difference.

[Table 2] shows a significant difference between cases and controls for all signs of part I.
Table 2 Comparison between cases and controls as regards part I of the assessment

Click here to view


The results indicated that cases had marked signs, which were prominent and impaired the normal swallowing process:

  1. Velopharyngeal closure was impaired in eight (25%) cases and only in two (6.25%) controls.
  2. Appearance of the hypopharynx and the larynx in rest showed signs of laryngomalacia in 16 (50%) cases, whereas laryngomalacia was seen only in three (9.375%) controls.
  3. Handling of secretions was bad in 29 (90.625%) cases, whereas all controls were handling secretions well.
  4. The mobility of the base of the tongue was weak in nine (28.125%) cases, whereas all controls had a good mobility of the base of the tongue.
  5. Pharyngeal function in swallowing was weak in 30 (93.75%) cases, whereas all controls had a normal pharyngeal function.
  6. Laryngeal function was weak in 12 (37.5%) cases, whereas all controls showed normal laryngeal function.
  7. Sensations were weak in 14 (43.75%) cases, whereas all controls showed normal sensations.
[Table 3] shows a significant difference between cases and controls for all items of part II, except for the item of hypopharyngeal reflux, which showed no significant difference between cases and controls. The results showed that the cases had marked signs, which may be said to cause the pediatric dysphagia or worsen it:
Table 3 Comparison between cases and controls as regards part II of the assessment

Click here to view


  1. Oral preparatory stage was prolonged in nine (28.125%) cases, whereas all controls showed a within-normal duration of the oral preparatory stage.
  2. Oral transit time was prolonged in nine (28.125%) cases, whereas all controls showed within-normal oral transit time.
  3. Timing of the bolus flow/initiation of the swallow showed delay in 30 (93.75%) cases, whereas all controls showed within-normal timing of the bolus flow/initiation of the swallow.
  4. Structural movements during the swallow showed inadequacy in 26 (81.25%) cases, whereas all controls showed within-adequate structural movements during the swallow.
  5. Penetration before and at onset of swallow was present in 16 (50%) cases, whereas all controls showed no penetration before, nor at onset of the swallow.
  6. Aspiration before and at the onset of the swallow was present in 11 (34.375%) cases, whereas all controls showed no aspiration before, nor at the onset of the swallow.
  7. Residue after the swallow and between swallows was present in 30 (93.75%) cases, whereas only one (3.125%) control showed residue after the swallow and between swallows.
  8. Aspiration after the swallow and between swallows was present in 11 (34.375%) cases, whereas all controls showed no aspiration after the swallow, nor between swallows.
  9. Hypopharyngeal reflux was present in five (15.625%) cases, whereas one (3.125%) control showed hypopharyngeal reflux, with no significant difference between the two.
  10. Sensations were weak in 14 (43.75%) cases, whereas sensations were within normal in controls.
[Table 4] shows that part I and part II assessment scores were significantly highly correlated among cases but not among controls. Age was not correlated with either part of assessment.
Table 4 Correlation between part I and part II assessment scores and age

Click here to view


Results of cases as regards age

  1. Correlation between part I and part II was significant (P < 0.001).
  2. Correlation between part I and age was not significant (P = 0.082).
  3. Correlation between part II and age was not significant (P = 0.278).
Results of controls as regards age

  1. Correlation between part I and part II was not significant (P = 0.674).
  2. Correlation between part I and age was not significant (P = 0.745).
  3. Correlation between part II and age was not significant (P = 0.341).
[Table 5] shows that sex was not correlated with either part of assessment. Thus, sex does not affect the assessment findings, neither in cases nor in controls.
Table 5 Association between part I and part II assessment scores and sex

Click here to view


Results of cases as regards sex

  1. Correlation of part I between male and female patients was not significant (P = 0.886).
  2. Correlation of part II between male and female patients was not significant (P = 0.569).
Results of controls as regards sex

  1. Correlation of part I between male and female patients was not significant (P = 0.442).
  2. Correlation of part II between male and female patients was not significant (P = 0.387).
Data management and analysis

The collected data were revised, coded, tabulated, and introduced to a PC using Statistical Package for Social Science (2001, SPSS 15.0 for Windows; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). Data were presented and suitable analysis was carried out according to the type of data obtained for each parameter.

Descriptive statistics

  1. Mean ± SD.
  2. Minimum and maximum values (range) for numerical data.
  3. Frequency and percentage of non-numerical data.
Analytical statistics

(1) The independent-samples: A t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the difference between the two study group means.

(2) The χ2 -test was used to examine the relationship between two qualitative variables.

P value: level of significance.

A P value more than 0.05 was considered nonsignificant (NS).

A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant (S).

A P value less than 0.01 was considered highly significant (HS).


  Discussion Top


In this study we used the FEES protocol [5] on pediatric patients with dysphagia and on controls. In part I of the assessment we found that the most common signs found in most of the pediatric patients with dysphagia were as follows:

  1. Weak pharyngeal function in 93.7% of patients, which indicates weak pharyngeal peristalsis and consequential difficulty in clearing the bolus. It was observed that the absence of pharyngeal wall contraction on gag is an indicative sign of pharyngeal dysphagia [9] .
  2. Bad handling of secretions in 90.6% of patients. In a normal individual, oropharyngeal secretions are cleared from the hypopharynx by periodic spontaneous swallows throughout the day. In a dysphagic patient, the accumulation of these secretions is thought to reflect impairment in the efficiency of laryngopharyngeal clearance [10] .
Among the factors contributing to a reduction in secretion clearance in a dysphagic patient would be a reduction in the frequency of spontaneous swallows, a weakness in the pharyngeal response during the swallow, or a combination of weakness, and decreased swallowing frequency. It was found that the accumulation of endoscopically visible oropharyngeal secretions located within the laryngeal vestibule was highly predictive of aspiration of food or liquid. As patients who show trouble in clearing oropharyngeal secretions from the laryngeal vestibule for whatever reason will also likely demonstrate the same trouble with food or liquid while swallowing [11] .

Thus, we considered that these two signs are the most common ones in pediatric dysphagia.

Weak base of the tongue and laryngeal function did not occur in controls; however, they occurred in pediatric patients but in less number (28.1 and 37.5%, respectively).

The tongue is used not only for moving the bolus about and forming a cohesive mass but also to sequentially press the bolus through the oropharynx and into the upper esophageal segment. Thus, weakness of the base of the tongue results in food sticking in the pharynx and increased incidence of coughing [12],[13] . It was reported that, in conjunction with palatal weakness, tongue weakness was strongly correlated with dysphagia [14] .

In case of affection of the laryngeal function, failure of the supraglottic and glottis laryngeal valve closure results in leakage through the supraglottis and glottis during swallow and in decreased ability to generate adequate hypopharyngeal pressures to propel the bolus through the pharyngeoesophageal segment and into the esophagus. Moreover, incomplete or absent laryngeal elevation may contribute to incomplete hypopharyngeal clearing [15] . Clinical measures for laryngeal function in case of dysphagia showed compelling results. It was observed that the clinical sign of 'dysphonia' was correlated with dysphagia after stroke [16] . It has been reported as one of the six signs, two or more of which indicate a problem, in the detection of aspiration [17] and more severe outcomes with dysphagia [18] . Most studies investigating the clinical signs of dysphagia cite a rating of vocal quality as useful [19] .

This indicates that these two signs also contribute to dysphagia but they are not common signs in pediatric dysphagia.

Poor velopharyngeal closure was seen in 25% of patients and signs of laryngomalacia were seen in 50% of patients. Although few numbers of controls showed these two signs, there was a significant difference between cases and controls. In case of the velopharyngeal incompetence, dysphagia is explained by the inability to create appropriate negative intraoral pressure during suckling in infants. However, in older children, dysphagia is explained by leakage of the bolus into nasopharynx and diminished ability to generate appropriate oropharyngeal pressure to propel the bolus through the oropharynx.

Although among structural signs, laryngomalacia is the most prominent, we assumed in this study that its presence was as a cause but not a sign of dysphagia. As laryngomalacia is primarily a respiratory disorder, because of airway obstruction, patients had feeding difficulty due to poor coordination of the suck-swallow-breathe sequence. The feeding difficulty in pediatric patients can lead to failure to thrive and even aspiration, which is a sign of dysphagia. A 5-year retrospective study [20] on 50 consecutive infants with severe laryngomalacia who were assessed with FEES found that 44 infants (80%) showed laryngeal penetration and 36 infants (72%) showed laryngeal penetration with aspiration. Those infants underwent supraglottoplasty and postoperative FEES indicated resolution of laryngeal penetration and aspiration in 36 infants (72%) and 31 (86.1%) patients, respectively. Other studies also showed that supraglottoplasty in case of severe laryngomalacia opened the airway in more than 80% of patients, improved swallowing, and decreased aspiration risk in carefully selected patients who otherwise would not be at risk for aspiration [21],[22] .

In part II of the assessment, we found that the most frequent signs were as follows: the delayed timing of the bolus flow/initiation of the swallow (93.7%), the presence of residue after the swallow and between the swallows (93.7%), and the inadequacy of the structural movements during the swallow (81.2%). Thus, these signs highly contribute to pediatric dysphagia. However, the prolonged oral preparatory stage was seen in 28.1% of the patients and prolonged oral transit time in 28.1% of patients. Thus, the affection in the pharyngeal phase of swallowing is more common than the affection in the oral phase of swallowing in pediatric dysphagia.

Aspiration may occur before, during, and after swallowing. The time sequence may have clinical importance in predicting the etiology. When aspiration occurs before a swallow, a delay in pharyngeal swallow initiation or abnormal tongue movements may play a role [23] . In this study, the rate of patients with delayed timing of the bolus flow/initiation of the swallow was 93.7%, with 34.3% showing penetration before and at the onset of swallow and 34.3% of patients with aspiration before and at the onset of swallow. A delayed swallow is serious, as if it is too long, penetration or aspiration will occur [24] . The bolus spills into the laryngeal vestibule before it has closed off for the swallow. Moreover, one of the justifications for that is the weak sensations, which was detected in 43.7% of the assessed patients. It may also be related to observed alterations in the oral phase [25] . It was found that, in 125 children with dysphagia, 60% had laryngeal penetration and 31% had deep laryngeal penetration (residue left on the true vocal folds) [26] . When deep laryngeal penetration occurred, 85% had associated aspiration. Aspiration that occurs before the swallow or at the onset of swallow is reportedly one of the most frequent times for aspiration to be seen [27] . A study conducted on 469 adult patients showed that aspiration before the swallow was the second most frequent time for aspiration to occur, accounting for about 25% of all aspiration events [28] .

Aspiration during a swallow indicates ineffective laryngeal closure or timing in coordination [23] . However, we could not assess aspiration during swallowing using FEES (swallow white-out), but in this study 37.5% of patients had weak laryngeal function and this may be an indicator for aspiration during swallowing.

Aspiration after swallow is from residue in the larynx and the hypopharynx being drawn in the larynx with the next breath [23] . In our study, 93.7% of patients had residue after the swallow and between the swallows, and 34.3% of patients showed aspiration after and between the swallows. The presence of residue may be associated with alterations in the oral phase and delay in initiation of the swallow reflex, in agreement with other studies [29],[24] . Aspiration after the swallow is the most frequent time for this event to occur according to a study conducted on 469 adult dysphagic patients; aspiration after the swallow accounted for about 65% of all events of aspiration [28] .

However, in this study we found that there is no specific time at which aspiration occurs more frequently in pediatric dysphagia.

The hypopharyngeal reflux was found to be present in few numbers of cases and controls, and there was no significant difference between cases and controls. Therefore, this means that hypopharyngeal reflux is not contributing to pediatric dysphagia. However, this finding is not convincing, as material pooling in the pyriforms may lead to coughing and reswallowing of the material or even aspiration.

The source of this pooling may be from the oral cavity or emerged from the esophagus through a relaxed upper esophageal sphincter (UES). Whether the material came from the esophagus or the stomach would not be known; hence, the term hypopharyngeal reflux is used [30] .

A study conducted on 28 patients aged from 1 to 32 months with evidence of gastro-esophageal reflux disorder (GERD), as well as evidence of dysphagia with aspiration or hypopharyngeal pooling by FEES. Each child underwent either medical or surgical intervention to control GERD. A significant improvement in swallow function after GERD treatment was found. GERD may lead to decreased laryngopharyngeal sensitivity, which may contribute to swallowing dysfunction [31] . It was also found that the incidence of oropharyngeal dysphagia is prominent in infants with GERD-like symptoms [32] .

We also found in this study that neither the age nor the sex has any influence on the two parts of assessment in both cases and controls. Thus, these findings are only related to dysphagia and neither the age nor the sex of the patients affects our findings.


  Conclusion and recommendation Top


We found that there are more common signs related strongly to pediatric dysphagia than others, such as handling of secretions, pharyngeal function, timing of the bolus flow/initiation of the swallow, structural movements during the swallow, and residue after the swallow and between swallows. They need a tailored program to overcome these signs. Laryngomalacia should be suspected as a common cause in pediatric dysphagia. We recommend applying this protocol on a larger group of dysphagic children to reveal the common signs related to each disorder accused of pediatric dysphagia.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Arvedson J, Rogers B. Pediatric swallowing and feeding disorders. J Med Speech Lang Pathol 1993; 1:203-221.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Logemann J. Evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 1998.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Justice L. Communication sciences and disorders: an introduction. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Munyard P, Bush A. How much coughing is normal? Arch Dis Child 1996; 74:531-534.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Langmore S. Endoscopic evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders. New York: Thieme; 2001.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Lefton-Greif MA, Arvedson JC. Pediatric feeding and swallowing disorders: state of health, population trends, and application of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health. Semin Speech Lang 2007; 28:161-165.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hawdon JM, Beauregard N, Slattery J, Kennedy G. Identification of neonates at risk of developing feeding problems in infancy. Dev Med Child Neurol 2000; 42:235-239.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Field D, Garland M, Williams K. Correlates of specific childhood feeding problems. J Paediatr Child Health 2003; 39:299-304.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Logemann JA, Veis S, Colangelo L. A screening procedure for oropharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia 1999; 14:44-51.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Linden P, Siebens A. Dysphagia: predicting laryngeal penetration. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1983; 64:281-284.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Murray J, Langmore SE, Ginsberg S, Dostie A. The significance of accumulated oropharyngeal secretions and swallowing frequency in predicting aspiration. Dysphagia 1996; 11:99-103.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Volonte MA, Porta M, Comi G. Clinical assessment of dysphagia in early phases of Parkinson's disease. Neurol Sci 2002; 23: Suppl 2:S121-S122.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Yoshida M, Kikutani T, Tsuga K, Utanohara Y, Hayashi R, Akagawa Y. Decreased tongue pressure reflects symptom of dysphagia. Dysphagia 2006; 21:61-65.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Mann G, Hankey GJ. Initial clinical and demographic predictors of swallowing impairment following acute stroke. Dysphagia 2001; 16: 208-215.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Dejaeger E, Pelemans W, Ponette E, Joosten E. Mechanisms involved in postdeglutition retention in the elderly. Dysphagia 1997; 12:63-67.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Horner J, Massey EW, Riski JE, Lathrop DL, Chase KN. Aspiration following stroke: clinical correlates and outcome. Neurology 1988; 38:1359-1362.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Daniels S, McAdam C, Brailey K, Foundas A. Clinical assessment of swallowing and prediction of dysphagia severity. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997; 6:17-24.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Daniels SK, Ballo LA, Mahoney MC, Foundas AL. Clinical predictors of dysphagia and aspiration risk: outcome measures in acute stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81:1030-1033.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
McCullough GH, Wertz RT, Rosenbek JC. Sensitivity and specificity of clinical/bedside examination signs for detecting aspiration in adults subsequent to stroke. J Commun Disord 2001; 34:55-72.   Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Richter GT, Wootten CT, Rutter MJ, Thompson DM. Impact of supraglottoplasty on aspiration in severe laryngomalacia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2009; 118:259-266.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Lee KS, Chen BN, Yang CC, Chen YC. CO2 laser supraglottoplasty for severe laryngomalacia: a study of symptomatic improvement. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 71:889-895.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Durvasula VS, Lawson BR, Bower CM, Richter GT. Supraglottoplasty in premature infants with laryngomalacia: does gestation age at birth influence outcomes? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014; 150:292-299.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Logemann J. A manual for videofluoroscopic evaluation of swallowing. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro Ed; 1993.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Manrique D, Melo E, Buhler R. Nasoendoscopic evaluation of deglutition in children. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2001; 67:796-801.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Delgado S, Almeida S, Pinto R, Cruz L. Evaluation and treatment of children hospitalized with dysphagia. Themes on Development 2001; 9:35-39.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Friedman B, Frazier JB. Deep laryngeal penetration as a predictor of aspiration. Dysphagia 2000; 15:153-158.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Veis SL, Logemann JA. Swallowing disorders in persons with cerebrovascular accident. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1985; 66:372-375.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]    
28.
Smith CH, Logemann JA, Colangelo LA, Rademaker AW, Pauloski BR. Incidence and patient characteristics associated with silent aspiration in the acute care setting. Dysphagia 1999; 14:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Rogers B, Arvedson J, Msall M, Demerath R. Hipoxemia during oral feeding of children with severe cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol 1993; 35:3-10.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Richardson BE, Bastian RW. Videoendoscopic swallowing study for diagnosis of Zenker's diverticuli. Laryngoscope 1998; 108:721-724.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Suskind DL, Thompson DM, Gulati M, Huddleston P, Liu DC, Baroody FM. Improved infant swallowing after gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment: a function of improved laryngeal sensation? Laryngoscope 2006; 116:1397-1403.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Fishbein M, Branham C, Fraker C, Walbert L, Cox S, Scarborough D. The incidence of oropharyngeal dysphagia in infants with GERD-like symptoms. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2013.; 37:667-673.  Back to cited text no. 32
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]


This article has been cited by
1 Role of ultrasound in evaluation of pharyngeal dysphagia in children with cerebral palsy
Ahmed S. Abdelrahman,Emad H. Abdeldayem,Samia Bassiouny,Hanan M. Elshoura
Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2019; 50(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Aim of the work
Participants and...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion and r...
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1127    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded158    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]