PubMed · 8157832
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J J Thomas. 1994. Using rubber dam.. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1994.0046
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
With the use of the methods developed to quantify oral dysfunctions in bulbar MG patients, our results indicate that we can distinguish the patients from their matched controls. These results can add to our knowledge of myasthenia gravis and these methods may improve diagnosis and therapy evaluation in individual patients. In addition, these methods may be used in future pharmacological research.
BACKGROUND: The preservation of speech and swallowing function is the primary goal when reconstructing soft tissue defects in the oral cavity or oropharynx. The type of reconstructive procedure used should be based on outcome data examining speech and swallowing function; yet, there is a paucity of such information. OBJECTIVES: To present the results of a multi-institutional prospective study of speech and swallowing function before and after soft tissue reconstruction of the oral cavity and oropharynx, and to compare 3 methods of reconstruction with respect to speech and swallowing function: primary closure, distal myocutaneous flap, and microvascular free flap. DESIGN: Prospective case-comparison study. SETTING: Four leading head and neck cancer institutions. PATIENTS: The patients were selected from a database of 284 patients treated at the different institutions. The patients were matched for the location of the oral cavity or oropharyngeal defect and the percentage of oral tongue and tongue base resection. Those patients who had previous speech and swallowing deficits and patients in whom postoperative fistulas or wound infections developed were excluded from the study. METHODS: The patients underwent speech and swallowing evaluation preoperatively and 3 months after healing. This evaluation included videofluoroscopic studies of swallowing and tests of speech intelligibility and sentence articulation. Videofluoroscopy provided measures of swallowing efficiency and bolus movement. Liquid and paste consistencies were used in evaluating swallowing function. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The functional results of the reconstruction. RESULTS: Patients who had primary closure were more efficient at swallowing liquids, had less pharyngeal residue, a longer oral transit time with paste, and higher conversational intelligibility than patients who underwent reconstruction with a distal flap. Compared with patients who underwent reconstruction with a free flap, those who had primary closure had more efficient swallowing of liquids, less pharyngeal residue, and shorter pharyngeal delay times with paste. No difference in the speech and swallowing function existed between patients treated with distal myocutaneous flaps and those treated with microvascular free flaps. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the current theory of oral and oropharyngeal reconstruction, we found that the use of primary closure resulted in equal or better function than the use of flap reconstruction in patients with a comparable locus of resection and percentage of oral tongue and tongue base resection.
Videofluoroscopic assessment of swallowing is widely used in clinical settings. The interpretation of such assessments depends on subjective visual judgments but the reliability of these judgments has been poorly researched. This study measured interrater reliability of judgments, made by speech pathologists, of videofluoroscopic images of subjects swallowing liquid and semisolid boluses. A 5-point rating scale was used in three conditions: individually after careful reading; together with other speech pathologists in group discussion; and individually after the group discussion. Analysis of the ratings for the three conditions revealed that the level of agreement among raters was generally higher for semisolid swallows than for liquid swallows. The highest levels of agreement occurred for ratings made after group discussions. The levels of agreement were lowest when raters worked alone, relying only on reading the scale. Individual rating after group discussion resulted in higher levels of agreement than sole reliance on reading the scale. Factors influencing the levels of interrater agreement, including the timing of observations, bolus consistency, the quality of the image, and the complexity of the task, are discussed.