4.1 Article

Dysphagia in Tongue Cancer Patients Before and After Surgery

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 74, Issue 10, Pages 2067-2072

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2016.03.031

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172563]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To define factors influencing postoperative aspiration in tongue cancer patients and to analyze the characteristics of dysphagia before and after surgery. Materials and Methods: A total of 112 tongue cancer patients participated in this work. Videofluoroscopic swallowing studies were performed in all patients before and after surgery. A Penetration-Aspiration Scale score of 3 or greater was defined as an aspiration risk. Qualitative data were collected on a frame-by-frame basis from each videofluoroscopic swallowing study and analyzed. Results: Smoking (58.14%, P < .01), tongue resection greater than 50% (38.71%, P < .05), and advanced tumor stage (49.18%, P < .01) were strong risk factors for aspiration. High incidences of inadequate tongue movement, delayed oral transit time, reduced hyoid bone elevation, poor aspiration or penetration, vallecula epiglottica, and residual material in the pyriform sinuses were evident after surgery (all P < .001). The Penetration-Aspiration Scale score was significantly higher after surgery than before surgery. The incidence of silent aspiration increased to 6.25% postoperatively. Conclusions: Smoking, larger tongue resection, and advanced tumor stage were strong risk factors for postoperative aspiration and dysphagia complications in tongue cancer patients. The aspiration rate was higher after surgery. Further studies should focus on the prevention and early treatment of dysphagia, especially postoperative aspiration, in tongue cancer patients. (C) 2016 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available