| Literature DB >> 25121119 |
Corinna Schultheiss1, Thomas Schauer2, Holger Nahrstaedt2, Rainer O Seidl1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Developing an automated diagnostic and therapeutic instrument for treating swallowing disorders requires procedures able to reliably detect and evaluate a swallow. We tested a two-stage detection procedure based on a combined electromyography/bioimpedance (EMBI) measurement system. EMBI is able to detect swallows and distinguish them from similar movements in healthy test subjects. STUDYEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25121119 PMCID: PMC4121244 DOI: 10.1155/2014/405471
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Electrode positioning. R = reference electrode, M = voltage measurement electrodes, and C = current source electrodes.
Figure 2Schematic of bioimpedance measurement. (a) During breathing, the pharynx is filled with air and tissue resistance is consequently high. (b) On swallowing, the pharynx is closed through muscle action and resistance is reduced.
Figure 3Biosignal curve. The signal trace above shows typical EMG (mV) and BI (ohm) biosignal curves for a saliva swallow in a healthy subject. BIstart = start of laryngeal elevation, BImin = maximum laryngeal elevation (BImin − BIstart), BIend = end of laryngeal elevation, EMGstart = start of muscle activity, EMGmax = maximum muscle activity during laryngeal elevation, and EMGend = end of muscle activity. Other swallowing-related parameters are speed of laryngeal elevation ((BImin − BIstart)/(t(BImin) − t(BIstart))), extent of laryngeal elevation (BIstart − (t(BImin) − t(BIstart))), and duration of preparation for swallowing and bolus formation (t(BIstart) − t(EMGstart)).
Summary of test subjects.
| Investigation | Number | Age | Medical history |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 31 | 32.5 ± 7.8 | Healthy |
| FEES | 41 | 63.4 ± 13.8 | Swallowing disorder |
24 of the 41 patients had neurological disorders: 10/24 = neurodegenerative disease, 8/24 = stroke, 2/24 = heart attack, 2/24 = craniocerebral injury, and 2/24 = other. 17 of the 41 patients had ENT specific tumor diseases.
Summary of swallows.
| Group | Number | Medical history | Swallow detection |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test subjects | 1828 | Healthy | Training = 1360 |
| Test = 698 | |||
|
| |||
| Patients | 711 | wnP = 587 | Training = 284 |
| wP = 77 | Test = 427 | ||
wnP = with no penetration, wP = with penetration, and number = number of swallows.
Group swallow parameters.
| Characteristic | Medical history | Mean | SD | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of preparation for swallowing and bolus formation | Healthy | −0.192 | 0.512 | 0.000∗∗∗ |
| Swallowing disorder | 0.022 | 8.360 | ||
|
| ||||
| Extent of laryngeal closure | Healthy | −0.935 | 0.512 | 0.013∗ |
| Swallowing disorder | −0.955 | 0.219 | ||
|
| ||||
| Maximum laryngeal elevation | Healthy | −1.416 | 0.482 | 0.000∗∗∗ |
| Swallowing disorder | −1.170 | 0.645 | ||
|
| ||||
| Speed of laryngeal elevation | Healthy | −4.963 | 1.901 | 0.000∗∗∗ |
| Swallowing disorder | −4.253 | 2.488 | ||
The comparison above shows means and standard deviations (SD) for both healthy subjects and patients with a swallowing disorder. The significance level was calculated using the Mann U test, where ∗∗∗ denotes a statistically significant difference at a significance level of 0.01 and ∗ at a significance level of 0.05.
Patient swallowing parameters.
| Characteristic | Medical history | Mean | SD | Statistical significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of preparation for swallowing and bolus formation | wnP | 0.029 | 9.172 | 0.352 |
| wP | −0.059 | 1.600 | ||
|
| ||||
| Extent of laryngeal closure | wnP | −0.954 | 0.217 | 0.370 |
| wP | −0.928 | 0.210 | ||
|
| ||||
| Maximum laryngeal elevation | wnP | −1.157 | 0.621 | 0.495 |
| wP | −1.332 | 0.848 | ||
|
| ||||
| Speed of laryngeal elevation | wnP | −4.758 | 3.416 | 0.710 |
| wP | −4.964 | 1.901 | ||
The comparison above shows means and standard deviations (SD) for patients with a swallowing disorder. The significance level was calculated using the Mann U test, where ∗∗∗ denotes a statistically significant difference at a significance level of 0.01 and ∗ at a significance level of 0.05. wnP = with no penetration and wP = with penetration.