Continued Relevance of Videofluoroscopy in the Evaluation of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia

  • Stephanie K. DanielsEmail author
  • Caryn S. Easterling
ENT Imaging (A A Jacobi-Postma, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. ENT Imaging


Purpose of Review

In the last decade, fluoroscopy in the radiology department has been largely replaced by more modern imaging techniques; however, the visualization of oropharyngeal swallowing function is still one of the hallmarks of fluoroscopy. This article describes the technique and interpretation of swallowing videofluoroscopy.

Recent Findings

As the evaluation of swallowing is a dynamic study with important, discrete events occurring rapidly, the fluoroscopic acquisition rate must be continuous or no less than 30 pulses per second. If the acquisition rate is less, important clinical information will be missed. Other swallowing evaluation techniques such as endoscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, and manometry are available. While each offers some advantages, their limitations preclude them from being the best evaluation tool for oropharyngeal swallowing.


The videofluoroscopic swallowing study remains a relevant and efficient instrumental evaluation for the management and rehabilitation of oropharyngeal swallowing.


Deglutition Deglutition disorders Dysphagia Videofluoroscopic swallowing study Modified barium swallow 



This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

Video 1

Completion of liquid bolus delivery via cup (MP4 3970 kb)

Video 2

Individual with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (MP4 4431 kb)

Video 3

Penetration to the true vocal folds and subsequent aspiration during sequential swallowing (MP4 6181 kb)


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of the modified barium swallow. Reston: ACR; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen MD. Can we use pulsed fluoroscopy to decrease the radiation dose during video fluoroscopic feeding studies in children? Clin Radiol. 2009;64:70–3. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.07.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Bonilha HS, Blair J, Carnes B, Huda W, Humphries K, McGrattan K, et al. Preliminary investigation of the effect of pulse rate on judgments of swallowing impairment and treatment recommendations. Dysphagia 2013;28:528–38. doi: 10.1007/s00455-013-9463-z. The effects of different pulse rates on interpretation of VFSS and treatment recommendations were determined. Results support the need to maintain 30 pps.
  4. 4.
    • Peladeau-Pigeon M, Steele CM. Technical aspects of the videofluoroscopic swallowing study. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 2013;37:216–26. An excellent review of videofluorosocopic parameters that should be addressed by radiologists and speech-language pathologists. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Palmer JB, Kuhlemeier KV, Tippett DC, Lynch C. A protocol for the videofluorographic swallowing study. Dsypahgia. 1993;8:209–14. doi: 10.1007/BF01354540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robbins J, Nicosia M, Hind JA, Gill GD, Blanco R, Logemann J. Defining physical properties of fluids for dysphagia evaluation and treatment. Perspect Swallowing Swallowing Disord. 2002;11:16–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martin-Harris B, Brodsky MB, Michel Y, Castell DO, Schleicher M, Sandidge J, et al. MBS measurement tool for swallow impairment-MBSImp: establishing a standard. Dsyphagia. 2008;23:392–405. doi: 10.1007/s00455-008-9185-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fink TA, Ross JB. Are we testing a true standard? Dysphagia. 2009;24:285–9. doi: 10.1007/s00455-008-9203-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia JM, Hakel M, Lazarus C. Unexpected consequence of effortful swallowing: case study report. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 2004;12:59–66.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hadjikoutis S, Pickersgill TP, Dawson K, Wiles CM. Abnormal patterns of breathing during swallowing in neurological disorders. Brain. 2000;123:1863–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin-Harris B, McFarland D, Hill EG, Strange CB, Focht KL, Wan Z, et al. Respiratory-swallow training in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015;96:885–93. doi: 10.1016/j-apmr.2014.11.0222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosenbek JC, Robbins J, Roecker EB, Coyle JL, Wood JL. A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia. 1996;11:93–8. doi: 10.1007/BF00417897.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eisenhuber E, Schima W, Shober E, Pokiesser P, Stadler A, Scharitzer M, et al. Videofluoroscopic assessment of patients with dysphagia: pharyngeal retention is a predictive factor for aspiration. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:393–8. doi: 10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780393.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dyer JC, Leslie P, Drinnan MJ. Objective computer-based assessment of valleculae residue: is it useful? Dysphagia. 2008;23:7–15. doi: 10.1007/s00455-007-9088-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pearson WG, Molfenter SM, Smith ZM, Steele CM. Image-based measurement of post-swallow residue: the normalized residue ratio scale. Dysphagia. 2013;28:167–77. doi: 10.1007/s00455-012-9426-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leonard R, Kendall KA, McKenzie S. Dynamic swallow study: objective measures and normative data in adults. In: Leonard R, Kendall KA, editors. Dysphagia assessment and treatment planning. 3rd ed. San Diego: Plural; 2014.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bonilha HS, Humphries K, Blair J, Hill EG, McGrattan K, Carnes B, et al. Radiation exposure time during MBSS: influence of swallowing impairment severity, medical diagnosis, clinical experience, and standardized protocol use. Dysphagia. 2013;28:77–85. doi: 10.1007/s00455-012-9415-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dietsch AM, Solomon NP, Steele CM, Pelletier CA. The effect of barium on perceptions of taste intensity and palatability. Dysphagia. 2014;29:96–108. doi: 10.1007/s00455-013-9487-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nagy A, Steele CM, Pelletier CA. Barium versus nonbarium stimuli: differences in taste intensity, chemestesis, and swallowing behavior in healthy adult women. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57:758–67. doi: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-13-0316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Langmore SE, Murray J. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). In: Shaker R, Easterling C, Belafsky PC, Postma GN, editors. Manual of diagnostic and therapeutic techniques for disorders of deglutition. New York: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Langmore S, Schatz K, Olsen N. Endoscopic and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing and aspiration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991;100:678–81. doi: 10.1177/000348949110000815.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bastian R. Videoendoscopic evaluation of patients with dysphagia: an adjunct to modified barium swallow. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;104:339–50. doi: 10.1177/019459989110400309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murray J, Langmore SE, Ginsberg S, Dostie A. The significance of accumulated oropharyngeal secretions and swallowing frequency in predicting aspiration. Dysphagia. 1996;11:99–103. doi: 10.1007/BF00417898.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ahang S, Olthoff A, Frahm J. Real-time magnetic resonance imaging of normal swallowing. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35:1372–9. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kumar KVV, Shankar V, Santosham R. Assessment of swallowing and its disorders—a dynamic MRI study. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:215–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amin MR, Stratos A, Lazarus CL, Branski RC, Storey EP, Praminik B, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the pharynx during deglutition. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122:145–50. doi: 10.1177/000348941312200301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miloro KV, Pearson WG, Langmore SE. Effortful pitch glide: a potential new exercise by dynamic MRI. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014;57:1243–50. doi: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-S-13-0168.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fritz M, Cerrati E, Fang Y, Verma A, Achlatis S, Lazarus C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the effortful swallow. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2014;123:786–90. doi: 10.1177/0003489414538607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lafer M, Achlatis S, Lazarus C, Fang Y, Branski RC, Amin MR. Temporal measurements of deglutition in dynamic magnetic resonance imaging versus videofluoroscopy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122:743–53. doi: 10.1177/000348941312201204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olthoff A, Zhang S, Schweizer R, Frahm J. On the physiology of normal swallowing as revealed by magnetic resonance imaging in real time. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2014;. doi: 10.1155/2014/493174.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Knigge MA, Thibeault S, McCulloch TM. Implementation of high-resolution manometry in the clinical practice of speech language pathology. Dysphagia. 2014;29:2–16. doi: 10.1007/s00455-013-9494-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bardan E, Kern M, Torrico S, Arndorfer RC, Massey BT, Shaker R. Radial asymmetry of the upper oesophageal sphincter pressure profile: fact or artifact. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2006;18:418–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2006.00773.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Knuff DA, Hogan WJ, Shaker R, Massey BT. Esophageal motor disturbances are common in patients with UES dysfunction. Dysphagia. 2006;21:314.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication Sciences and DisordersUniversity of HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations