MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1177/0003489414550241

Медицинская библиотека · The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology · 2014

A comparison of 2 methods of endoscopic laryngeal sensory testing: a preliminary study.

Kaneoka Asako, Krisciunas Gintas P, Walsh Kayo, Raade Adele S, Langmore Susan E

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the association between laryngeal sensory deficits and penetration or aspiration. Two methods of testing laryngeal sensation were carried out to determine which was more highly correlated with Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores.

METHODS

Healthy participants and patients with dysphagia received an endoscopic swallowing evaluation including 2 sequential laryngeal sensory tests-air pulse followed by touch method. Normal/impaired responses were correlated with PAS scores.

RESULTS

Fourteen participants completed the endoscopic swallowing evaluation and both sensory tests. The air pulse method identified sensory impairment with greater frequency than the touch method (P<.0001). However, the impairment identified by the air pulse method was not associated with abnormal PAS scores (P=.46). The sensory deficits identified by the touch method were associated with abnormal PAS scores (P=.05).

CONCLUSION

Sensory impairment detected by the air pulse method does not appear to be associated with risk of penetration/aspiration. Significant laryngeal sensory loss revealed by the touch method is associated with compromised airway protection.

Для цитирования: Kaneoka Asako, Krisciunas Gintas P, Walsh Kayo, Raade Adele S, Langmore Susan E. A comparison of 2 methods of endoscopic laryngeal sensory testing: a preliminary study.. The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology. 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0003489414550241.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.