The risk of laryngeal penetration or aspiration among discrete, sequential, and chew-swallowing
The risk of laryngeal penetration or aspiration among discrete, sequential, and chew-swallowing
复制标题
离散吞咽、连续吞咽和咀嚼吞咽之间的喉部穿透或误吸风险
DOI：
10.11336/jjcrs.10.77
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Saitoh E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ogawa M;Kagaya H;Ozeki M;Kikumura K;Shibata S;Saitoh E.
张文，张文.喉穿透或吸入的风险在离散，顺序，咀嚼吞咽。Jpn J Compr Rehabil Sci 2019; 10：77- 81.目的：比较三种不同类型的吞咽-离散吞咽、顺序吞咽和咀嚼吞咽-的喉穿透和误吸风险。研究方法：在2011年1月至2016年5月期间，136例患者在坐位吞咽10 mL液体（离散吞咽：LQ 10）、30 g杯子液体（顺序吞咽：CUP 30）以及5 mL液体和4 g咸牛肉的混合物（咀嚼吞咽：MX）时接受了吞咽视频荧光镜检查，未使用补偿技术。我们评估了吞咽三种类型的药丸时是否存在喉穿透和误吸。分别使用McNemar检验和斯皮尔曼等级相关系数研究每次推注的难度和渗透-抽吸量表（PA量表）。结果如下：LQ 10组73例、MX组62例和CUP 30组97例患者中观察到喉部穿透，表明CUP 30组患者明显多于LQ 10（p< 0.001）和MX（p< 0.001）。LQ 10组有8名患者出现误吸，MX组有14名患者出现误吸，CUP 30组有20名患者出现误吸。CUP 30的误吸病例显著多于LQ 10（p= 0.009）。LQ 10和CUP 30每次推注的PA量表相关系数为ρ= 0.370（p< 0.001），MX和CUP 30为ρ= 0.100（p= 0.312），MX和LQ 10为ρ=-0.202（p= 0.055）。结论：CUP 30的喉部穿透频率最高，其次是LQ 10和MX; CUP 30的抽吸频率最高，其次是MX和LQ 10。MX与LQ 10或MX与CUP 30之间PA量表无统计学显著相关性。
Ogawa M, Kagaya H, Ozeki M, Kikumura K, Shibata S, Saitoh E. The risk of laryngeal penetration or aspiration among discrete, sequential, and chewswallowing. Jpn J Compr Rehabil Sci 2019; 10: 77-81.Objective: To compare three different types of swallowing—discrete swallowing, sequential swallowing, and chew-swallowing—in terms of the risk of laryngeal penetration and aspiration. Methods: Between January 2011 and May 2016, 136 patients underwent videofluoroscopic examination of swallowing without the use of compensation techniques while they swallowed 10 mL of liquid (discrete swallowing: LQ10), 30 g of liquid from a cup (sequential swallowing: CUP30), and a mixture of 5 mL of liquid and 4 g of corned beef (chewswallowing: MX) in the sitting position. We assessed the presence or absence of laryngeal penetration and aspiration during swallowing the three types of boluses. The degree of difficulty and Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PA Scale) for each bolus were investigated using McNemar’s test and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, respectively. Results: Laryngeal penetration was observed in 73 patients for LQ10, 62 for MX, and 97 for CUP30, indicating that there were significantly more patients for CUP30 than LQ10 (p< 0.001) and MX (p< 0.001). Aspiration was observed in 8 patients for LQ10, 14 for MX, and 20 for CUP30. There were significantly more cases of aspiration for CUP30 than LQ10 (p= 0.009). The correlation coefficients for the PA Scale for each bolus were ρ= 0.370 for LQ10 and CUP30 (p< 0.001), ρ= 0.100 for MX and CUP30 (p= 0.312), and ρ=− 0.202 for MX and LQ10 (p= 0.055). Conclusions: The frequency of laryngeal penetration was highest for CUP30, followed by that for LQ10 and MX; the frequency of aspiration was highest for CUP30, followed by that for MX and LQ10. There was no statistically significant correlation for PA Scale between MX and LQ10 nor MX and CUP30.