Advertisement

Dysphagia

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 192–200 | Cite as

Effect of Age, Sex, Bolus Volume, and Bolus Consistency on Whiteout Duration in Healthy Subjects During FEES

  • Francesco MozzanicaEmail author
  • Rosaria Lorusso
  • Carlo Robotti
  • Tania Zambon
  • Pietro Corti
  • Nicole Pizzorni
  • Jan Vanderwegen
  • Antonio Schindler
Original Article

Abstract

One of the major limitations of the fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is related to the challenging application of temporal measures. Among them, Whiteout (WO) is due to pharyngeal and tongue base contraction and might be used as an estimation of the pharyngeal phase duration. The aims of this study were to evaluate the inter- and intrarater reliability of WO duration and to appraise the effects of age, sex, volume, and texture of the boluses on this temporal measurement. A total of 30 healthy volunteers were recruited. According to their age, the subjects were grouped into three different age groups. Each of them underwent FEES examination with different textures (liquid, semisolid, and solid) and volumes. FEES examinations were video recorded, processed with the software Daisy Viewer 2.0, which allowed the acquisition of 25 frames per second (s) and analyzed by three different raters in order to collect data on WO duration. A total of 863 swallowing acts were video recorded. Intra- and interrater reliability of WO duration were excellent. Both volume and bolus’s texture significantly affected WO duration. In particular, WO duration was significantly shorter for the liquid texture than for the semisolid and solids ones. In addition, male subjects scored significantly higher values of WO duration. Finally, WO duration was significantly higher in seniors. WO duration seems to be a reliable temporal measure during FEES examination. WO duration seems to be affected by several factors such as age, sex, volume, and consistency.

Keywords

Deglutition Deglutition disorders FEES Whiteout 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Nothing to declare.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

The present study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and it was previously approved by the Institutional Review Board of our hospital.

Informed Consent

All the enrolled volunteers gave their written informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Langmore SE. History of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing for evaluation and management of pharyngeal dysphagia: changes over the years. Dysphagia. 2017;32:27–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Langmore SE. Evaluation of oropharyngeal dysphagia: which diagnostic tool is superior? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;11:485–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Willging JP. Endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1995;32:S107–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aviv JE, Kaplan ST. The safety of endoscopic swallowing evaluations. In: Langmore SE, editor. Endoscopic evaluation and treatment of swallowing disorders. New York: Thieme; 2001. p. 235–42.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reynolds J, Carroll S, Sturdivant C. A multidisciplinary alternative for assessment of infants with dysphagia in the neonatal intensive care unit. Adv Neonat Care. 2016;16:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perlman AL, Van Daele DJ. Simultaneous videoendoscopic and ultrasound measures of swallowing. J Med Speech Lang Pathol. 1993;1:223–32.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Molfenter SM, Steele CM. Temporal variability in the deglutition literature. Dysphagia. 2012;27:162–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shaker R, Dodds WJ, Dantas RO, Hogan WJ, Arndorfer RC. Coordination of deglutitive glottic closure with oropharyngeal swallowing. Gastroenterology. 1990;98:1478–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Daele DJ, McCulloch MT, Palmer PM, Langmore SE. Timing of glottis closure during swallowing: a combined electromyographic and endoscopic analysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2005;114:478–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Butler SG, Maslan J, Stuart A, Leng X, Wilhelm E, Lintzenich CR, Williamson J, Kritchevsky SB. Factors influencing bolus dwell times in healthy older adults assessed endoscopically. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:2526–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Logemann JA, Rademarker AW, Pauloski BR, Ohmae Y, Kahrilas PJ. Normal swallowing physiology viewed by videofluoroscopy and videoendoscopy. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1998;50:311–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Logemann JA, Rademarker AW, Pauloski BR, Ohmae Y, Kahrilas PJ. Interobserver agreement on normal swallowing physiology as viewed by videoendoscopy. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1999;51:91–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nasreddine ZS, Philips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H. The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ekberg O, Feinberg MJ. Altered swallowing function in elderly patients without dysphagia: radiologic findings in 56 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;156:1181–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schweizer V. Swallowing disorders in the elderly. Rev Med Suisse. 2010;6:1859–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DePippo KL, Holas MA, Reding MJ. Validation of the 3-oz water swallow test for aspiration following stroke. Arch Neurol. 1992;49:1259–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reimers-Neils L, Logemann J, Larson C. Viscosity effects on EMG activity in normal swallow. Dysphagia. 1994;9:101–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoffman MR, Ciucci MR, Mielens JD, Jiang JJ, McCulloch TM. Pharyngeal swallow adaptations to bolus volume measured with hig resolution manometry. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:2367–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perlman AL, Schultz J, Van Daele DJ. Effects of age, gender, bolus volume, and bolus viscosity on oropharingeal pressure during swallowing. J Appl Physiol. 1993;75:33–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Logemann JA, Pauloski BR, Rademaker AW, Colangel LA, Kahrilas PJ, Smith CH. Temporal and biomechanical characteristics of oropharyngeal swallow in younger and older man. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43:1264–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Houtte E, Van Lierde K, D’Haeseleer E, Claeys S. The prevalence of laryngeal pathology in a treatment-seeking population with dysphonia. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:306–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mozzanica F, Ginocchio D, Barillari R, Barozzi S, Maruzzi P, Ottaviani F, Schindler A. Prevalence and voice characteristics of laryngeal pathology in an Italian voice therapy-seeking population. J Voice. 2016;30:774.e13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Sciences and Community HealthUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, L. Sacco HospitalUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  3. 3.Thomas More University College of Applied SciencesAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations