Cargando…

Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia

The purpose of this study was to compare videofluoroscopy (VFS), fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and oro-pharyngo- oesophageal scintigraphy (OPES) with regards to premature spillage, post-swallowing residue and aspiration to assess the reliability of these tests for detection o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fattori, B., Giusti, P., Mancini, V., Grosso, M., Barillari, M.R., Bastiani, L., Molinaro, S., Nacci, A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Pacini Editore SRL 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5225795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27958600
http://dx.doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-829
_version_ 1782493587274989568
author Fattori, B.
Giusti, P.
Mancini, V.
Grosso, M.
Barillari, M.R.
Bastiani, L.
Molinaro, S.
Nacci, A.
author_facet Fattori, B.
Giusti, P.
Mancini, V.
Grosso, M.
Barillari, M.R.
Bastiani, L.
Molinaro, S.
Nacci, A.
author_sort Fattori, B.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to compare videofluoroscopy (VFS), fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and oro-pharyngo- oesophageal scintigraphy (OPES) with regards to premature spillage, post-swallowing residue and aspiration to assess the reliability of these tests for detection of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia. Sixty patients affected with dysphagia of various origin were enrolled in the study and submitted to VFS, FEES and OPES using a liquid and semi-solid bolus. As a reference, we used VFS. Both the FEES and the OPES showed good sensitivity with high overall values (≥ 80% and ≥ 90% respectively). The comparison between FEES vs VFS concerning drop before swallowing showed good specificity (84.4% for semi-solids and 86.7% for liquids). In the case of post-swallowing residue, FEES vs VFS revealed good overall validity (75% for semi-solids) with specificity and sensitivity well balanced for the semi-solids. OPES vs. VFS demonstrated good sensitivity (88.6%) and overall validity (76.7%) for liquids. The analysis of FEES vs. VFS for aspiration showed that the overall validity was low (≤ 65%). On the other hand, OPES demonstrated appreciable overall validity (71.7%). VFS, FEES and OPES are capable of detecting oro-pharyngeal dysphagia. FEES gave significant results in the evaluation of post-swallowing residues.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5225795
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Pacini Editore SRL
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52257952017-01-27 Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia Fattori, B. Giusti, P. Mancini, V. Grosso, M. Barillari, M.R. Bastiani, L. Molinaro, S. Nacci, A. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Phoniatry The purpose of this study was to compare videofluoroscopy (VFS), fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and oro-pharyngo- oesophageal scintigraphy (OPES) with regards to premature spillage, post-swallowing residue and aspiration to assess the reliability of these tests for detection of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia. Sixty patients affected with dysphagia of various origin were enrolled in the study and submitted to VFS, FEES and OPES using a liquid and semi-solid bolus. As a reference, we used VFS. Both the FEES and the OPES showed good sensitivity with high overall values (≥ 80% and ≥ 90% respectively). The comparison between FEES vs VFS concerning drop before swallowing showed good specificity (84.4% for semi-solids and 86.7% for liquids). In the case of post-swallowing residue, FEES vs VFS revealed good overall validity (75% for semi-solids) with specificity and sensitivity well balanced for the semi-solids. OPES vs. VFS demonstrated good sensitivity (88.6%) and overall validity (76.7%) for liquids. The analysis of FEES vs. VFS for aspiration showed that the overall validity was low (≤ 65%). On the other hand, OPES demonstrated appreciable overall validity (71.7%). VFS, FEES and OPES are capable of detecting oro-pharyngeal dysphagia. FEES gave significant results in the evaluation of post-swallowing residues. Pacini Editore SRL 2016-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5225795/ /pubmed/27958600 http://dx.doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-829 Text en © Copyright by Società Italiana di Otorinolaringologia e Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale, Rome, Italy http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License, which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any digital medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way. For details, please refer to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
spellingShingle Phoniatry
Fattori, B.
Giusti, P.
Mancini, V.
Grosso, M.
Barillari, M.R.
Bastiani, L.
Molinaro, S.
Nacci, A.
Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia
title Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia
title_full Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia
title_fullStr Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia
title_short Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia
title_sort comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia
topic Phoniatry
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5225795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27958600
http://dx.doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-829
work_keys_str_mv AT fattorib comparisonbetweenvideofluoroscopyfiberopticendoscopyandscintigraphyfordiagnosisoforopharyngealdysphagia
AT giustip comparisonbetweenvideofluoroscopyfiberopticendoscopyandscintigraphyfordiagnosisoforopharyngealdysphagia
AT manciniv comparisonbetweenvideofluoroscopyfiberopticendoscopyandscintigraphyfordiagnosisoforopharyngealdysphagia
AT grossom comparisonbetweenvideofluoroscopyfiberopticendoscopyandscintigraphyfordiagnosisoforopharyngealdysphagia
AT barillarimr comparisonbetweenvideofluoroscopyfiberopticendoscopyandscintigraphyfordiagnosisoforopharyngealdysphagia
AT bastianil comparisonbetweenvideofluoroscopyfiberopticendoscopyandscintigraphyfordiagnosisoforopharyngealdysphagia
AT molinaros comparisonbetweenvideofluoroscopyfiberopticendoscopyandscintigraphyfordiagnosisoforopharyngealdysphagia
AT naccia comparisonbetweenvideofluoroscopyfiberopticendoscopyandscintigraphyfordiagnosisoforopharyngealdysphagia