Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Daejeon Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Republic of Korea.
Int J Rehabil Res. 2021 Jun 1;44(2):181-184. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000468.
The purposes of this study were to compare poststroke liquid swallowing methods by including a cup and a straw in videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS) and to test the hypothesis that increased aspiration would be observed with the cup compared to the straw. Eighty-five poststroke patients who had undergone VFSS using a spoon, cup, and straw were included. Penetration-aspiration scale and functional dysphagia scale (FDS) were used for assessment. These scores did not differ significantly between the cup and the straw. Higher FDS scores were found with the cup than with the straw in patients who had penetration/aspiration with both the cup and the straw and with the cup only. However, FDS scores did not differ significantly between the cup and the straw in patients who had penetration/aspiration with the straw only. Although advantages of the straw over the cup were clear, some patients showed penetration/aspiration only with the straw.
本研究旨在比较在吞咽造影检查(VFSS)中同时使用杯子和吸管两种液体吞咽方法,并验证使用杯子会比吸管更容易导致误吸的假设。研究共纳入 85 名经 spoon、cup 和 straw 三种方法行 VFSS 的脑卒中后患者。采用渗透-误吸量表和功能性吞咽障碍量表(FDS)进行评估。结果显示,杯子和吸管两种方法的渗透-误吸量表评分无显著差异。在同时使用杯子和吸管以及仅使用杯子发生渗透/误吸的患者中,使用杯子时的 FDS 评分高于使用吸管时。但在仅使用吸管发生渗透/误吸的患者中,两种方法的 FDS 评分无显著差异。虽然吸管相对于杯子有明显优势,但部分患者仅在使用吸管时发生渗透/误吸。