Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parameters of Instrumental Swallowing Evaluations: Describing a Diagnostic Dilemma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Dysphagia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare selected parameters of two swallow evaluations: fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and the modified barium swallow (MBS) study. This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Fifty-five clinicians were asked to watch video recordings of swallow evaluations of 2 patients that were done using fluoroscopy and endoscopy simultaneously. In a randomized order, clinicians viewed 4 edited videos from simultaneous evaluations: the FEES and MBS videos of patient 1 and 2 each taking one swallow of 5 mL applesauce. Clinicians filled out a questionnaire that asked (1) which anatomical sites they could visualize on each video, (2) where they saw pharyngeal residue after a swallow, (3) their overall clinical impression of the pharyngeal residue, and (4) their opinions of the evaluation styles. Clinicians reported a significant difference in the visualization of anatomical sites, 11 of the 15 sites were reported as better-visualized on the FEES than on the MBS video (p < 0.05). Clinicians also rated residue to be present in more locations on the FEES than on the MBS. Clinicians’ overall impressions of the severity of residue on the same exact swallow were significantly different depending on the evaluation type (FEES vs. MBS for patient 1 χ2 = 20.05, p < 0.0001; patient 2 χ2 = 7.52, p = 0.006), with FEES videos rated more severely. FEES advantages were: more visualization of pharyngeal and laryngeal swallowing anatomy and residue. However, as a result, clinicians provided more severe impressions of residue amount on FEES. On one hand, this suggests that FEES is a more sensitive tool than MBS studies, but on the other hand, clinicians might provide more severe interpretations on FEES.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kidder T, Langmore S, Martin B. Indications and techniques of endoscopy in evaluation of cervical dysphagia: comparison with radiographic techniques. Dysphagia. 1994;9:256–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aviv JE. Prospective, randomized outcome study of endoscopy vs. modified barium swallow in patients with dysphagia. Laryngoscope. 2000;100:563–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Langmore SE, Schatz K, Olsen N. Endoscopic and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing and aspiration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991;100:678–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wu CH, Hsiao TY, Chen JC, Chang YC, Lee SY. Evaluation of swallowing safety with fiberoptic endoscope: comparison with videofluoroscopic technique. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:396–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leder SB, Sasaki CT, Burrell MI. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of dysphagia to identify silent aspiration. Dysphagia. 1998;13:19–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rao N, Brady S, Chaudhuri G, Donzelli J, Wesling M. Gold standard? Analysis of the videofluoroscopic and fiberoptic endoscopic swallow examinations. J App Res. 2003;3:89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kelly AM, Leslie P, Beale T, Payten C, Drinnan MJ. Fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videofluoroscopy: does examination type influence perception of pharyngeal residue severity? Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31(5):423–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Langmore SE. Endoscopic evaluation of oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing. GI Motility. 2006; online 16 May. doi:10.1038/gimo28.

  9. Brady S, Donzello J. The modified barium swallow and the functional endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2013;46(6):1009–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nordally SO, Sohawon S, DeGieter M, Bellout H, Verougstraete G. A study to determine the correlation between clinical, fiber-optic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing after prolonged intubation. Nutr Clin Pract. 2011;26(4):457–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Willging JP, Miller CK, Hogan MJ, Rudolph CD. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in children: a preliminary report of 100 procedures. Dysphagia. 1996;11(2):162.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wu CH, Hsiago TY, Chen JC, Chang YC, Lee SY. Evaluation of swallowing safety with fiberoptic endoscope: comparison with videofluroscopic technique. Laryngoscope. 1997;107:396–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaye GM, Zoroqitz RD, Baredes S. Role of flexible laryngoscopy in evaluating aspiration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1997;106:705–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Perie S, Laccourreye L, Flahault A, Hazebroucq V, Chaussade S, St Guily JL. Role of videoendoscopy versus modified barium swallow in patients with dysphagia. Laryngoscope. 2000;110:563–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Madden C, Fenton J, Hughes J, Timon C. Comparison between videofluroscopy and milk-swallow endoscopy in the assessment of swallowing function. Clin Otolaryngol. 2000;25:504–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kelly AM. Assessing penetration and aspiration: how do videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare? Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1723–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical practice: applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Health; 2009 (ISBN: 9780131716407).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Martin-Harris B, Brodsky MB, Michel Y, Castell DO, Schleicher M, Sandidge J, Maxwell R, Balir J. MBS measurement tool for swallow impairment—MBSImp: establishing a standard. Dysphagia. 2008;23:392–405.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hind JA, Gensler G, Brandt DK, et al. Comparison of trained clinician ratings with expert ratings of aspiration on videofluoroscopic images from a randomized clinical trial. Dysphagia. 2009;24(2):211–7. doi:10.1007/s00455-008-9196-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gerek M, Atalay A, Cekin E, Ciyiltepe M, Ozkaptan Y. The effectiveness of fiberoptic endoscopic swallow study and modified barium swallow study techniques in diagnosis of dysphagia. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2005;15(5–6):103–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perlman AL, Grayhack JP, Booth BM. The relationship of vallecular residue to oral involvement, reduced hyoid elevation, and epiglottic function. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35:734–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Molfenter SM, Steel CM. The relationship between residue and aspiration on the subsequent swallow: an application of the Normalized Residue Ratio Scale. Dysphagia. 2013;29:494–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Butler SG, Markley L, Sanders B, Stuart A. Reliability of the penetration aspiration scale with flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Ann Oto Rhinol Laryngol. 2015;124(6):480–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hey C, Pluschinski P, Pajunk R, Almahameed A, Girth L, Sader R, Stöver T, Zaretsky Y. Penetration–aspiration: is their detection in FEES reliable without video recording? Dysphagia. 2015;30:418–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Neubauer PD, Rademaker AW, Leder SB. The Yale pharyngeal residue severity rating scale: an anatomically defined and image-based tool. Dysphagia. 2015;. doi:10.1007/s00455-015-9631-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaneoka A, Langmore SE, Krisciunas GP, Field K, Scheel R, McNally E, Walsh MJ, O’Dea MB, Cabral H. The Boston residue and clearance scale: preliminary reliability and validity testing. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2013;65:312–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Conner NP, Klaben BK, Bursac Z, Thrush CR, Glaze LE. Establishing validity of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2011;20:14–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nacci A, Ursino F, La Vela R, Matteucci F, Mallardi V, Fattori B. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES): proposal for informed consent. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2008;28(4):206–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Pearson WG Jr, Molfenter SM, Smith Z, Steele CM. Image-based measurement of post-swallow residue: the normalized residue ratio scale. Dysphagia. 2013;. doi:10.1007/s00455-012-9426-9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Jung SH, Kim J, Jeong H, Lee SU. Effect of the order of test diets on the accuracy and safety of swallowing studies. Ann Rehabil Med. 2014;38(3):304–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Fuller SC, Leonard R, Aminpour S, Belafsky PC. Validation of the pharyngeal squeeze maneuver. otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2009;140:391–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boston University Medical Center, FGH Building 820 Harrison Ave., Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Jessica M. Pisegna & Susan E. Langmore

  2. Sargent College, Boston University, 635 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Jessica M. Pisegna & Susan E. Langmore

  3. 474 Massachusetts Ave., Unit 2, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Jessica M. Pisegna

Authors
  1. Jessica M. Pisegna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan E. Langmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica M. Pisegna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1239 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pisegna, J.M., Langmore, S.E. Parameters of Instrumental Swallowing Evaluations: Describing a Diagnostic Dilemma. Dysphagia 31, 462–472 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9700-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9700-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation