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.
Confronto tra videofluoroscopia, endoscopia a fibre ottiche e scintigrafia per la diagnosi di disfagia oro-faringea
Barillari, M. R.;
2016
Abstract
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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
