ArticleScientific reports2024
Oropharyngeal swallowing hydrodynamics of thin and mildly thick liquids in an anatomically accurate throat-epiglottis model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms underlying dysphagia is crucial in devising effective, etiology-centered interventions. However, current clinical assessment and treatment of dysphagia are still more symptom-focused due to our limited understanding of the sophisticated symptom-etiology associations causing swallowing disorders. This study aimed to elucidate the mechanisms giving rise to penetration flows into the laryngeal vestibule that results in aspirations with varying symptoms. Methods: Anatomically accurate, transparent throat models were prepared with a 45° down flapped epiglottis to simulate the instant of laryngeal closure during swallowing. Fluid bolus dynamics were visualized with fluorescent dye from lateral, rear, front, and endoscopic directions to capture key hydrodynamic features leading to aspiration. Three influencing factors, fluid consistency, liquid dispensing site, and dispensing speed, were systemically evaluated on their roles in liquid aspirations. Results: Three aspiration mechanisms were identified, with liquid bolus entering the airway through (a) the interarytenoid notch (notch overflow), (b) cuneiform tubercle recesses (recess overflow), and (c) off-edge flow underneath the epiglottis (off-edge capillary flow). Of the three factors considered, liquid viscosity has the most significant impact on aspiration rate, followed by the liquid dispensing site and the dispensing speed. Water had one order of magnitude higher aspiration risks than 1% w/v methyl cellulose solution, a mildly thick liquid. Anterior dispensing had higher chances for aspiration than posterior oropharyngeal dispensing for both liquids and dispensing speeds considered. The effects of dispending speed varied. A lower speed increased aspiration for anterior-dispensed liquids due to increased off-edge capillary flows, while it significantly reduced aspiration for posterior-dispensed liquids due to reduced notch overflows. Visualizing swallowing hydrodynamics from multiple orientations facilitates detailed site-specific inspections of aspiration mechanisms.
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.