Search

ObjectiveFistula remains a common complication of upper aerodigestive tract reconstruction. Optimal timing of oral feeding is unknown and the impact of early feeding on swallow function and fistula rates remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to better understand the effects of "early feeding" on fistula rate and swallow in patients with free flap reconstruction of upper aerodigestive tract defects.MethodsRetrospective cohort study. One hundred and four patients undergoing free flap reconstruction of mucosalized head and neck defects. Two groups, early feeding (oral intake on or before postoperative day 5) and late-feeding (oral intake after postoperative day 5). Primary outcome was incidence of salivary fistula. Secondary outcomes included Functional Oral Intake Scale scores.ResultsFistula rate was 16.5% in late-feeding group and 0% in early-feeding group (P = .035). Patients who were fed early had an association with progression to a full oral diet by 30 days (P = .027).DiscussionThis cohort analysis suggests that in properly selected patients with free flap reconstruction for mucosal defects, early feeding may not increase risk of salivary fistula and may improve swallow functional outcomes earlier. Level of Evidence: 3.

Purpose: While flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a common clinical procedure used in the head and neck cancer (HNC) population, extant outcome measures for FEES such as bolus-level penetration-aspiration and residue scores are not well suited as global patient-level endpoint measures of dysphagia severity in cooperative group trials or clinical outcomes research. The Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) was initially developed and validated for use during videofluoroscopic evaluations as a way to grade safety, efficiency, and overall pharyngeal swallowing impairment. The purpose of this study was to adapt and validate DIGEST for use with FEES. Method: A modified Delphi exercise was conducted for content validation, expert consensus, adaptation, and operationalization of DIGEST-FEES. Three blinded, expert raters then evaluated 100 de-identified post-HNC treatment FEES examinations. Intra- and interrater reliability were tested with quadratic weighted kappa. Criterion validity against the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory, Functional Oral Intake Scale, Secretion Severity Scale, and Yale Residue Rating Scale was assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Interrater reliability was almost perfect for overall DIGEST-FEES grade (?[subscript w] = 0.83) and safety grade (?[subscript w] = 0.86) and substantial for efficiency grade (?[subscript w] = 0.74). Intrarater reliability was excellent for all raters (0.9-0.91). Overall DIGEST-FEES grade correlated with MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (r = -0.43, p < 0.0001), Functional Oral Intake Scale (r = -0.43, p < 0.0001), Secretion Severity Scale (r = 0.47, p < 0.0001), Yale Vallecular Residue (r = 0.73, p < 0.0001), and Yale Pyriform Sinus Residue (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: DIGEST-FEES is a valid and reliable scale to describe the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia in patients with HNC.

Purpose: While flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a common clinical procedure used in the head and neck cancer (HNC) population, extant outcome measures for FEES such as bolus-level penetration-aspiration and residue scores are not well suited as global patient-level endpoint measures of dysphagia severity in cooperative group trials or clinical outcomes research. The Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) was initially developed and validated for use during videofluoroscopic evaluations as a way to grade safety, efficiency, and overall pharyngeal swallowing impairment. The purpose of this study was to adapt and validate DIGEST for use with FEES. Method: A modified Delphi exercise was conducted for content validation, expert consensus, adaptation, and operationalization of DIGEST-FEES. Three blinded, expert raters then evaluated 100 de-identified post-HNC treatment FEES examinations. Intra- and interrater reliability were tested with quadratic weighted kappa. Criterion validity against the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory, Functional Oral Intake Scale, Secretion Severity Scale, and Yale Residue Rating Scale was assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: Interrater reliability was almost perfect for overall DIGEST-FEES grade ([k.sub.w] = 0.83) and safety grade ([k.sub.w] = 0.86) and substantial for efficiency grade ([k.sub.w] = 0.74). Intrarater reliability was excellent for all raters (0.9-0.91). Overall DIGEST-FEES grade correlated with MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (r = -.43, p < .0001), Functional Oral Intake Scale (r = -.43, p < .0001), Secretion Severity Scale (r = .47, p < .0001), Yale Vallecular Residue (r = .73, p < .0001), and Yale Pyriform Sinus Residue (r = .65, p < .0001). Conclusion: DIGEST-FEES is a valid and reliable scale to describe the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia in patients with HNC. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha. 14642787, Swallowing is the top functional priority rated by head and neck cancer (HNC) patients before and after treatment, and is a driver of quality of life (QOL) in HNC survivors [...]

Objectives/Hypothesis: Dysphagia encompasses a complex compilation of symptoms which often differ from findings of objective swallowing evaluations. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the results of subjective dysphagia measures to objective measures of swallowing in patients evaluated in a multidisciplinary dysphagia clinic. Study Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: The study cohort included all patients evaluated in the multidisciplinary dysphagia clinic over 24 months. Participants were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team including a laryngologist, gastroenterologist, and speech‐language pathologist. Evaluation included a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS), fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE). Data collected included diet (FOIS), Eating Assessment Tool (EAT‐10) score, Reflux symptom index (RSI) score, and the findings of the VFSS exam. Results: A total of 75 patients were included in the analysis. The average EAT‐10 score was 16.3 ± 2.1, RSI was 21.4 ± 0.6, and FOIS score was 6.0 ± 1.33. VFSS revealed impairments in the oral phase in 40% of the cohort, pharyngeal in 59%, and esophageal in 49%. Abnormalities were noted in one phase for 32%, in 2 phases in 32%, and three phases in 18%. Patients with abnormal pharyngeal findings on VFSS had significantly higher EAT‐10 scores (P =.04). Patients with abnormal oral findings on VFSS were noted to have significantly lower FOIS scores (P =.03). Conclusions: Data presented here demonstrate a relationship between patient reported symptoms and objective VFSS findings in a cohort of patients referred for multidisciplinary swallowing assessment suggesting such surveys are helpful screening tools but inadequate to fully characterize swallowing impairment. Level of Evidence: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:1088–1094, 2021 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives/hypothesis: Based on current guidelines, surgical and nonsurgical therapies are viable frontline treatment for patients with locoregional oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). We sought to compare financial parameters between chemoradiation and transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in this patient population.Study Design: Case-control study.Methods: In this study we identified patients with selected American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th Edition stage II to IVa OPC treated with TORS between January 2013 and December 2014. Fifteen patients who underwent TORS were stage matched with 15 patients treated with chemoradiation. Total charges and cost data for each patient were analyzed at 4-month and 1-year time points; functional and oncologic outcomes were assessed.Results: There were no significant differences in functional and oncologic outcomes. Patients undergoing TORS had a longer inpatient hospital stay, and most required a nasogastric tube for an average of 3.5 days. There were no local or regional recurrences. Across all time points, the TORS group had lower charges and costs compared to the chemoradiation group, with 14% lower costs at 1 year. In the chemoradiation group, nearly two-thirds of costs came from radiation therapy and pharmacy expenses. Chemotherapy accounted for most pharmacy costs. The costs of operating the surgical robot accounted for a about half of surgical costs.Conclusions: Selected patients with stage II to IVa oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with TORS may incur lower costs than those treated nonsurgically. With rising healthcare spending, the financial impact of treatment might be considered for those patients eligible for treatment regimens with comparable functional and oncologic outcomes.Level Of Evidence: 3b Laryngoscope, 129:1604-1609, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]