No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HNC) often experience malnutrition and dehydration during treatment. As a result, some centres place PEG tubes prophylactically (pPEG) to prevent these negative consequences. However, recent research has suggested that pPEG use may negatively affect swallowing physiology, function and/or quality of life, especially in the long term. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on pPEG use in HNC patients undergoing radiotherapy and to determine its impact on swallowing-related outcomes. The following electronic databases were searched for all relevant primary research published through February 24, 2014: AMED, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Healthstar, Medline, and PsycINFO. Main search terms included HNC, radiotherapy, deglutition disorders, feeding tube(s), and prophylactic or elective. References for all accepted papers were hand searched to identify additional relevant research. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias. At all levels, two blinded raters provided judgments. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The search retrieved 181 unique citations. Twenty studies met our inclusion criteria. Quality assessment revealed that all studies were at risk for bias due to non-randomized sampling and unreported or inadequate blinding. Ten studies demonstrated selection bias with significant baseline differences between pPEG patients and controls. Results regarding the frequency and severity of dysphagia and swallowing-related outcomes were varied and inconclusive. The impact of pPEG use on swallowing and swallowing-related outcomes remains unclear. Well-controlled, randomized trials are needed to determine if pPEG places patients at greater risk for developing long-term dysphagia.

Background: Considering that the incidence of dysphagia is as high as 55% following acute stroke, we undertook a systematic review of the literature to identify lesion sites that predict its presence after acute ischemic stroke. Methods: We searched 14 databases, 17 journals, 3 conference proceedings and the grey literature using the Cochrane Stroke Group search strategy and terms for MRI and dysphagia. We evaluated study quality using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool and extracted individual-level data. We calculated relative risks in order to model dysphagia according to neuroanatomical lesion sites. Results: Of 964 abstracts, 84 articles met the criteria for full review. Of these 84 articles, 17 met the quality criteria. These 17 articles dealt exclusively with dysphagia after infratentorial stroke and provided MRI correlates of dysphagia for 656 patients. The incidence of dysphagia according to stroke region was 0% in the cerebellum, 6% in the midbrain, 43% in the pons, 40% in the medial medulla and 57% in the lateral medulla. Within these regions, pontine (relative risk 3.7, 95% confidence interval 1.5–7.7), medial medullary (relative risk 6.9, 95% confidence interval 3.4–10.9) and lateral medullary lesions (relative risk 9.6, 95% confidence interval 5.9–12.8) predicted an increased risk of dysphagia. Conclusions: We sought to develop a neuroanatomical model of dysphagia throughout the whole brain. However, the literature that met our quality criteria addressed the MRI correlates of dysphagia exclusively within the infratentorium. Although not surprising, these findings are a first step toward establishing a neuroanatomical model of dysphagia after infratentorial ischemic stroke and provide insight into the assessment of individuals at risk for dysphagia.