Transnasale fiberoptisch-endoskopische Schluckuntersuchung bei Kindern : Standardisiertes diagnostisches Vorgehen Standardized diagnostic approach Translated title: Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in children

This study assessed the clinical indicators and severity of dysphagia in a representative sample of children with severe generalized cerebral palsy and intellectual disability. A total of 166 children (85 males, 81 females) with Gross Motor Function Classification System Level IV or V and IQ<55 were recruited from 54 daycare centres. Mean age was 9 years 4 months (range 2 y 1 mo-19 y 1 mo). Clinically apparent presence and severity of dysphagia were assessed with a standardized mealtime observation, the Dysphagia Disorders Survey (DDS), and a dysphagia severity scale. Additional measures were parental report on feeding problems and mealtime duration. Of all 166 participating children, 1% had no dysphagia, 8% mild dysphagia, 76% moderate to severe dysphagia, and 15% profound dysphagia (receiving nil by mouth), resulting in a prevalence of dysphagia of 99%. Dysphagia was positively related to severity of motor impairment, and, surprisingly, to a higher weight for height. Low frequency of parent-reported feeding problems indicated that actual severity of dysphagia tended to be underestimated by parents. Proactive identification of dysphagia is warranted in this population, and feasible using a structured mealtime observation. Children with problems in the pharyngeal and esophageal phases, apparent on the DDS, should be referred for appropriate clinical evaluation of swallowing function.

As flexible endoscopic examinations of swallowing become more widely used to evaluate patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, it is important to be aware of research regarding the efficacy of this procedure as compared with the videofluoroscopy procedure. A recent evidence-based review of the field threw some long-held findings into question and has stimulated a surge of new research studying the sensitivity of the two instrumental examinations, health outcomes of patients who receive each procedure, and a look at different patient outcomes. Since 1999, one quasi-randomized clinical trial has directly compared outcomes of patients given a fluoroscopy versus a fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) examination. This study showed no significant difference in pneumonia rates between the two groups of patients. A multitude of studies have shown a high level of agreement between the two instrumental examinations, and the use of the term gold standard as applied to fluoroscopy is no longer appropriate. The attempt to standardize each examination has been slow, and inter-judge reliability of results has come under fire. Several new scales for quality of life and functional status are now ready to be applied to research that can measure outcomes other than pneumonia. Research to date has suggested that both instrumental examinations are valuable. It is likely that both will continue to be used and will be seen as complementary rather than competitors.