Oral FEES (O-FEES) is an endoscopic procedure conceived to directly visualise the oral phase of swallowing. In the perspective of clinical use, the feasibility, safety and acceptability of O-FEES has been evaluated. Subsequently, the procedure was compared with the radiological gold standard. The acceptability of O-FEES was compared to that of FEES using a 10 point questionnaire submitted to a sample of 52 outpatients complaining of swallowing disorders. Repeated measure analysis of variance (rm-ANOVA) models were used to test the mean difference of acceptability in the same subjects after FEES and O-FEES. Subsequently, another sample of 8 male outpatients underwent a simultaneous O-FEES and videofluoroscopic study (VFSS). The inter-rater reliability using 10 radiological landmarks, compared to O-FEES, was blindly determined between two raters. Inter-rater agreement between the two judges for O-FEES and VFSS scores was assessed with the single score intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Differences between FEES and O-FEES answers for each question and among all the items considered overall were statistically significant (rm-ANOVA; F-statistic p < 0.001). The inter-rater agreement concerning endoscopic and radiological evaluations between the two raters showed strong values of intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (95% confidence interval): 0.875 (0.373-0.979) and 0.921 (0.542-0.986), respectively. The Bland-Altman test showed a bias of -0.24 (95% limits of agreement; -1.77 to +1.19), which suggests that both methods produced almost identical results. In clinical practice and compared with FEES, O-FEES is a well tolerated and safe procedure. Compared with the radiological gold standard, O-FEES offers reliable information about oral preparation and oral propulsion of the bolus

The endoscopic evaluation of the oral phase of swallowing (Oral-FEES, O-FEES): a pilot study of the clinical use of a new procedure.

FATTORI, BRUNO;
2017-01-01

Abstract

Oral FEES (O-FEES) is an endoscopic procedure conceived to directly visualise the oral phase of swallowing. In the perspective of clinical use, the feasibility, safety and acceptability of O-FEES has been evaluated. Subsequently, the procedure was compared with the radiological gold standard. The acceptability of O-FEES was compared to that of FEES using a 10 point questionnaire submitted to a sample of 52 outpatients complaining of swallowing disorders. Repeated measure analysis of variance (rm-ANOVA) models were used to test the mean difference of acceptability in the same subjects after FEES and O-FEES. Subsequently, another sample of 8 male outpatients underwent a simultaneous O-FEES and videofluoroscopic study (VFSS). The inter-rater reliability using 10 radiological landmarks, compared to O-FEES, was blindly determined between two raters. Inter-rater agreement between the two judges for O-FEES and VFSS scores was assessed with the single score intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Differences between FEES and O-FEES answers for each question and among all the items considered overall were statistically significant (rm-ANOVA; F-statistic p < 0.001). The inter-rater agreement concerning endoscopic and radiological evaluations between the two raters showed strong values of intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (95% confidence interval): 0.875 (0.373-0.979) and 0.921 (0.542-0.986), respectively. The Bland-Altman test showed a bias of -0.24 (95% limits of agreement; -1.77 to +1.19), which suggests that both methods produced almost identical results. In clinical practice and compared with FEES, O-FEES is a well tolerated and safe procedure. Compared with the radiological gold standard, O-FEES offers reliable information about oral preparation and oral propulsion of the bolus
2017
Farneti, D; Fattori, Bruno; Bastiani, Luca
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/811147
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact