ArticleDysphagia2022
Postoperative Dysphagia Aortica: Comparison with Other Dysphagia.
Article in Dysphagia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dysphagia can be classified as oropharyngeal or esophageal, and functional or structural deficits of the esophagus can cause esophageal dysphagia. Dysphagia aortica (DA) is defined as dysphagia caused by extrinsic compression of the esophagus by the aorta. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of DA by comparing the findings of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS) with those of other dysphagia. Sixty-seven patients with postoperative dysphagia aortica (PDA), dysphagia after brainstem infarction (DBI), dysphagia after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (DACDF), and subjective swallowing difficulty (SSD) without penetration and/or aspiration, who had undergone VFSS incorporating tests using 5 ml of thin and thick liquids, were included. The clinical data were collected retrospectively. The penetration-aspiration scale, functional dysphagia scale (FDS), esophageal transit time (ETT), and aortic lesion parameters (maximal diameter and distance between the lesion and the apex of the aortic arch) were assessed. The patients with PDA had higher FDS scores than the patients with SSD and lower scores than the patients with DBI did on thin liquids, while the FDS scores on thick liquids were lower in the patients with PDA than in those with DBI or DACDF. The patients with PDA had longer ETT than the other three groups. No correlation was found between the aortic lesion parameters and the VFSS findings. Although PDA has some oropharyngeal symptoms, the esophageal phase was affected mainly by PDA. After an operation on the aorta, VFSS should be considered before resuming oral feeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.