4.7 Article

Realistic computer simulation of bolus flow during swallowing

Journal

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
Volume 108, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106040

Keywords

Swallowing simulation; Aspiration; Computer simulation; Velocity; Shear rate; Viscosity; Trajectory analysis

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [18H04166, 18K09706]
  2. Meiji Co., Ltd.
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18H04166, 18K09706] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, swallow simulation, Swallow Vision (R), was used to estimate the velocity, shear rate, and viscosity of food during swallowing. The subjects were a healthy young person and an elderly patient with aspiration. The test food was a Newtonian fluid (viscosity 2.5 mPa . s) and a non-Newtonian fluid (viscosity 300 mPa . s at a shear rate of 50 [1/s]). A realistic numerical organ model was created based on Computed Tomography and Video-fluorography while swallowing the test food, and the bolus flow was analyzed using a numerical model whose validation was evaluated. Consequently, in the analysis of a model in which a healthy person swallowed the Newtonian fluid, the median velocity of the bolus flow changed in the range of 0.2-0.6 m/s, and there was a bimodal peak. The median shear rate ranged from 75 to 200 [1/s], and there were three peaks. In the swallowing of the non-Newtonian fluid, the flow velocity smoothly changed between 0.1 and 0.5 m/s, the shear rate varied between 50 and 100 [1/s], and the average of the median values during the entire swallowing process was 78 [1/s]. The trajectory analysis of the simulation model of the dysphagia patient demonstrated that the aspirated particles flowed faster than the non-aspirated particles. These results indicate that the numerical simulation based on medical images can analyze the bolus flow during swallowing, although there are still issues to be solved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available