Parameters of Instrumental Swallowing Evaluations: Describing a Diagnostic Dilemma

The aim of this study was to compare selected parameters of two swallow evaluations: fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) and the modified barium swallow (MBS) study. This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Fifty-five clinicians were asked to watch video recordings of swallow evaluations of 2 patients that were done using fluoroscopy and endoscopy simultaneously. In a randomized order, clinicians viewed 4 edited videos from simultaneous evaluations: the FEES and MBS videos of patient 1 and 2 each taking one swallow of 5 mL applesauce. Clinicians filled out a questionnaire that asked (1) which anatomical sites they could visualize on each video, (2) where they saw pharyngeal residue after a swallow, (3) their overall clinical impression of the pharyngeal residue, and (4) their opinions of the evaluation styles. Clinicians reported a significant difference in the visualization of anatomical sites, 11 of the 15 sites were reported as better-visualized on the FEES than on the MBS video (p < 0.05). Clinicians also rated residue to be present in more locations on the FEES than on the MBS. Clinicians’ overall impressions of the severity of residue on the same exact swallow were significantly different depending on the evaluation type (FEES vs. MBS for patient 1 χ² = 20.05, p < 0.0001; patient 2 χ² = 7.52, p = 0.006), with FEES videos rated more severely. FEES advantages were: more visualization of pharyngeal and laryngeal swallowing anatomy and residue. However, as a result, clinicians provided more severe impressions of residue amount on FEES. On one hand, this suggests that FEES is a more sensitive tool than MBS studies, but on the other hand, clinicians might provide more severe interpretations on FEES.