, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 196–203 | Cite as

Relationship Between Manometric and Videofluoroscopic Measures of Swallow Function in Healthy Adults and Patients Treated for Head and Neck Cancer with Various Modalities

  • Barbara Roa Pauloski
  • Alfred W. Rademaker
  • Cathy Lazarus
  • Guy Boeckxstaens
  • Peter J. Kahrilas
  • Jerilyn A. Logemann
Original Article


Pharyngeal manometry complements the modified barium swallow with videofluoroscopy (VFS) in diagnosing pressure-related causes of dysphagia. When manometric analysis is not feasible, it would be ideal if pressure information about the swallow could be inferred accurately from the VFS evaluation. Swallowing function was examined using VFS and concurrent manometry in 18 subjects (11 head and neck patients treated with various modalities and 7 healthy adults). Nonparametric univariate and multivariate analyses revealed significant relationships between manometric and fluoroscopic variables. Increases in pressure wave amplitude were significantly correlated with increased duration of tongue base to pharyngeal wall contact, reduced bolus transit times, and oropharyngeal residue. Pharyngeal residue was the most important VFS variable in reflecting pharyngeal pressure measurements. Certain VFS measures were significantly correlated with measures of pressure assessed with manometry. Further research is needed before observations and measures from VFS alone may be deemed sufficient for determining pressure-generation difficulties during the swallow in patients who are unable or unwilling to submit to manometric testing.


Deglutition Deglutition disorders Videofluoroscopy Manometry Cancer Correlation 



This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health grant NIH/NCI P01CA40007.


  1. 1.
    Castell JA, Dalton CB, Castell DO. Pharyngeal and upper esophageal sphincter manometry in humans. Am J Physiol. 1990;258:G173–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ergun GA, Kahrilas PJ, Logemann JA. Interpretation of pharyngeal manometric recordings: limitations and variability. Dis Esophagus. 1993;6:11–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kahrilas PJ, Logemann JA, Lin S, Ergun GA. Pharyngeal clearance during swallow: a combined manometric and videofluoroscopic study. Gastroenterology. 1992;103:128–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacob P, Kahrilas P, Logemann J, Shah V, Ha T. Upper esophageal sphincter opening and modulation during swallowing. Gastroenterology. 1989;97:1469–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malhi-Chowla N, Achem SR, Stark ME, DeVault KR. Manometry of the upper esophageal sphincter and pharynx is not useful in unselected patients referred for esophageal testing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:1417–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ali GN, Wallace KL, Laundl TM, Hunt DR, deCarle DJ, Cook IJ. Predictors of outcome following cricopharyngeal disruption for pharyngeal dysphagia. Dysphagia. 1997;12(3):133–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cook IJ. Cricopharyngeal function and dysfunction. Dysphagia. 1993;8(3):244–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olsson R, Castell JA, Castell DO, Ekberg O. Solid-state computerized manometry improves diagnostic yield in pharyngeal dysphagia: simultaneous videoradiography and manometry in dysphagia patients with normal barium swallows. Abdom Imaging. 1995;20(3):230–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ali GN, Wallace KL, Schwartz R, DeCarle DJ, Zagami AS, Cook IJ. Mechanisms of oral-pharyngeal dysphagia in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Gastroenterology. 1996;110(2):383–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hila A, Castell JA, Castell DO. Pharyngeal and upper esophageal sphincter manometry in the evaluation of dysphagia. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2001;33:355–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook IJ, Kahrilas PJ. AGA technical review on management of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Gastroenterology. 1999;116:455–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Podas T, Eaden J, Mayberry M, Mayberry J. Achalasia: a critical review of epidemiological studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:2345–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leonard R, Belafsky PC, Rees CJ. Relationship between fluoroscopic and manometric measures of pharyngeal constriction: the pharyngeal constriction ratio. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2006;115:897–901.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rubenstein EB, Peterson DE, Schubert M, Keefe D, McGuire D, Epstein J, et al. Mucositis Study Section of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer; International Society for Oral Oncology, Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cancer therapy-induced oral and gastrointestinal mucositis. Cancer. 2004;100(9 Suppl):2026–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dejaeger E, Pelemans W, Ponette E, Joosten E. Mechanisms involved in postdeglutition retention in the elderly. Dysphagia. 1997;12:63–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Roa Pauloski
    • 1
  • Alfred W. Rademaker
    • 2
  • Cathy Lazarus
    • 1
    • 4
  • Guy Boeckxstaens
    • 3
    • 5
  • Peter J. Kahrilas
    • 3
  • Jerilyn A. Logemann
    • 1
  1. 1.Communication Sciences and DisordersNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Preventive Medicine, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer CenterNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of GastroenterologyNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  4. 4.New York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations