Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2006 Jan;21(1):49-55.
doi: 10.1007/s00455-005-9009-0.

Evaluating oral stimulation as a treatment for dysphagia after stroke

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Evaluating oral stimulation as a treatment for dysphagia after stroke

Maxine L Power et al. Dysphagia. 2006 Jan.

Abstract

Deglutitive aspiration is common after stroke and can have devastating consequences. While the application of oral sensory stimulation as a treatment for dysphagia remains controversial, data from our laboratory have suggested that it may increase corticobulbar excitability, which in previous work was correlated with swallowing recovery after stroke. Our study assessed the effects of oral stimulation at the faucial pillar on measures of swallowing and aspiration in patients with dysphagic stroke. Swallowing was assessed before and 60 min after 0.2-Hz electrical or sham stimulation in 16 stroke patients (12 male, mean age = 73 +/- 12 years). Swallowing measures included laryngeal closure (initiation and duration) and pharyngeal transit time, taken from digitally acquired videofluoroscopy. Aspiration severity was assessed using a validated penetration-aspiration scale. Preintervention, the initiation of laryngeal closure, was delayed in both groups, occurring 0.66 +/- 0.17 s after the bolus arrived at the hypopharynx. The larynx was closed for 0.79 +/- 0.07 s and pharyngeal transit time was 0.94 +/- 0.06 s. Baseline swallowing measures and aspiration severity were similar between groups (stimulation: 24.9 +/- 3.01; sham: 24.9 +/- 3.3, p = 0.2). Compared with baseline, no change was observed in the speed of laryngeal elevation, pharyngeal transit time, or aspiration severity within subjects or between groups for either active or sham stimulation. Our study found no evidence for functional change in swallow physiology after faucial pillar stimulation in dysphagic stroke. Therefore, with the parameters used in this study, oral stimulation does not offer an effective treatment for poststroke patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Dysphagia. 2004 Winter;19(1):28-35 - PubMed
    1. Dysphagia. 2002 Winter;17(1):81-2 - PubMed
    1. Dysphagia. 1994 Winter;9(1):7-11 - PubMed
    1. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004 Jan;286(1):G45-50 - PubMed
    1. Dysphagia. 1997 Fall;12(4):188-93 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources