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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |