4.2 Article

Dysphagia Post Subcortical and Supratentorial Stroke

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 74-82

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.08.037

Keywords

Subcortical and supratentorial stroke; dysphagia; cricopharyngeal muscle achalasia; pharyngeal delay

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Studies have recognized that the damage in the subcortical and supratentorial regions may affect voluntary and involuntary aspects of the swallowing function. The current study attempted to explore the dysphagia characteristics in patients with subcortical and supratentorial stroke. Methods: Twelve post first or second subcortical and supratentorial stroke patients were included in the study. The location of the stroke was ascertained by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The characteristics of swallowing disorder were assessed by video fluoroscopic swallowing assessment/fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. The following main parameters were analyzed: oral transit time, pharyngeal delay time, presence of cricopharyngeal muscle achalasia (CMA), distance of laryngeal elevation, the amounts of vallecular residue and pyriform sinus residue (PSR), and the extent of pharyngeal contraction. Results: Eighty-three percent of the 12 patients were found suffering from pharyngeal dysphagia, with 50% having 50%-100% PSRs, 50% having pharyngeal delay, and 41.6% cases demonstrating CMA. Simple regression analysis showed PSRs were most strongly associated with CMA. Pharyngeal delay in the study can be caused by infarcts of basal ganglia/thalamus, infarcts of sensory tract, infarcts of swallowing motor pathways in the centrum semiovale, or a combination of the three. Conclusion: Subcortical and supratentorial stroke may result in pharyngeal dysphagia such as PSR and pharyngeal delay. PSR was mainly caused by CMA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available