Journal List > Korean J Health Promot > v.15(2) > 1089874

Jung, Han, Park, and Choi: Effects of Tongue-Holding Maneuver Compared with Mendelsohn Maneuver on Swallowing Function in Stroke Patients

Abstract

Background

Dysphagia is a common complication in stroke patients. This study aimed to investigate the effects of the tongue-holding maneuver over an 8-week period on the swallowing function in stroke patients.

Methods

Twenty-eight stroke patients with dysphagia diagnosed within 1 year were randomly allocated to the experimental or control groups. The experimental (n=15) and control groups (n=13) performed the tongue-holding and Mendelsohn maneuver, respectively. And both groups additionally participated in traditional dysphagia therapy. The maneuvers were conducted for thirty minutes a day, five days a week, for six weeks, totaling forty sessions. Swallowing function with the functional dysphagia scale and swallowing pain with the visual analogue scale between the 2 groups were tested by chi-square tests, Mann-whitney testes, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

Results

The general characteristics, including age, sex, and disease history, between the two groups did not differ. After 8 weeks of intervention, swallowing function at the oral phase and the pharyngeal phase and the total score was significantly improved in both experimental and control groups. Also, swallowing pain decreased significantly in both groups. However, the change to swallowing function and pain between the groups were not different.

Conclusions

The tongue-holding maneuver practiced over an eight-week period improved the swallowing function in stroke patients.

REFERENCES

1.Statistics Korea. Cause of death statistics. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2013.
2.Kang BM., Kwon HC., Kim H., Cho YN. Effect of orofacial exercise on the swallowing function of stroke patients. J Korean Soc Occup Ther. 2013. 21(1):57–69.
3.Paciaroni M., Mazzotta G., Corea F, et al. Dysphagia following stroke. Eur Neurol. 2004. 51(3):162–67.
crossref
4.Song YG., Lee HS., Jung WM. Swallowing disorder. Seoul: Gyechukmunhwasa;2007.
5.Chon JS., Chun SI., Kim DA., Bae HS. Clinical evaluation of dysphagia in stroke patients (1). Ann Rehabil Med. 1996. 20(2):305–11.
6.Hah JH., Chang H. Interventional management of post-stroke dysphagia. JKDS. 2014. 4(1):11–7.
7.Silva AC., Fabio SR., Dantas RO. A scintigraphic study of oral, phatyngeal, and esophageal transit in patients with stroke. Dysphagia. 2008. 23(2):165–71.
8.Logemann JA. Swallowing disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2007. 21(4):563–73.
crossref
9.Logemann JA. Evaluation and Treatment of Swallowing Disdorders-2e. Seoul: Hakjisa;2007.
10.Huckabee ML., Cannito MP. Outcomes of swallowing rehabilitation in chronic brainstem dysphagia: A retrospective evaluation. Dysphagia. 1999. 14(2):93–109.
crossref
11.Yoon IJ. Rehabilitation techniques for dysphagia. JKDS. 2012. 2(1):8–13.
12.Bodén K., Hallgren A., Witt Hedström H. Effects of three different swallow maneuvers analyzed by videomanometry. Acta Radiol. 2006. 47(7):628–33.
crossref
13.Lee SJ., Kim SY. Comparison of menselshon maneuver and electrical stimulation on swallowing ability of the stroke patients with dysphagia. KADR. 2010. 2(1):47–56.
14.Woo JH., Jeong WM., Kim YK., Koo JW. The relevant factors and effect of swallowing function on oropharyngeal stimulation program in stroke patients with swallowing disorder. J Korean Soc Occupational Therapy. 2009. 17(4):1–12.
15.Fujiu M., Logemann JA. Effect of a tongue-holding maneuver on posterior pharyngeal wall movement during deglutition. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1996. 5(1):23–30.
crossref
16.Doeltgen SH., Witte U., Gumbley F., Huckabee ML. Evaluation of manometric measures during tongue-hold swallows. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009. 18(2):65–73.
crossref
17.OH JC., PARK JW., CHA TH., WOO HS., KIM DK. Exercise using tongue-holding swallow does not improve swallowing function in normal subjects. J Oral Rehabil. 2012. 39(5):364–9.
crossref
18.Woo HS., Chang KY., Oh JC. The effects of eight-week tongue-holding maneuver program on activation of swallowing-related muscles. J Korean Soc Occupational Therapy. 2014. 22(1):53–63.
crossref
19.Kisner C., Colby LA. Therapeutic exercise: Foundations and techniques. Philadelpia, PA: F.A. Davis Company;2007.
20.Kim YH., Han TR., Jung HY, et al. Clinical practice guideline for stroke rehabilitation in Korea. Brain Nuerorehabil. 2009. 2(1):1–38.
crossref
21.Radomski MV., Latham CAT. Occupational therapy for physical dysfunction. 6th ed.Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;2008.
22.Park YG., Cha TH., Jung MY. Rehabilitation dysphagia therapy for individuals with dysphagia. J Korean Dysphagia Soc. 2011. 1(1):31–8.
23.Park JS., Jeong CH., Oh DH. Effect of tongue pressure resistance training on tongue strength, swallowing function and dietary stage of chronic stroke patients with dysphagia. J Korean Soc Occupational Therapy. 2014. 22(3):11–24.
crossref
24.Lee YS., Byun YS., Choi JH., Ahn HJ. Evaluation of masticatory efficiency and oral health related quality of life in temporomandibular disorder patients. J Oral Med Pain. 2010. 35(2):135–47.
25.Lee EH., Choi JY. Development and utilization of assessment and intervention checklist for post-stroke dysphagia. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2013. 25(2):113–24.
crossref
26.Logemann JA. Treatment of oral and pharyngeal dysphagia. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2008. 19(4):803–16.
crossref
27.Fujiu M., Logemann JA. Effect of a tongue-holding maneuver on posterior pharyngeal wall movement during deglutition. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1996. 5:23–30.
crossref

Figure 1.
Tongue-holding maneuver.
kjhp-15-83-f1.tif
Figure 2.
Mendelsohn maneuver.
kjhp-15-83-f2.tif
Table 1.
Basic characteristics of subjects
Experimental group (n=15) Control group (n=13) P
Sex
Male 8 (53.3) 6 (46.2) 0.705
Female 7 (46.7) 7 (53.8)
Age, y
<65 10 (66.7) 6 (46.2) 0.274
≥65 5 (33.3) 7 (53.8)
Diagnosis
Infarction 8 (53.3) 9 (69.2) 0.390
Hemorrhage 7 (46.7) 4 (30.8)
Duration
<6 7 (46.7) 8 (61.5) 0.431
≥6 8 (53.3) 5 (38.5)
Lifetime smoking experience
Yes 4 (26.7) 4 (30.8) 0.811
No 11 (73.3) 9 (69.2)
Lifetime drinking experience
Yes 10 (66.7) 7 (53.8) 0.488
No 5 (33.3) 6 (46.2)
Operation history
Yes 3 (20.0) 6 (46.2) 0.139
No 12 (80.0) 7 (53.8)
Disease history
Yes 11 (73.3) 8 (61.5) 0.505
No 4 (26.7) 5 (38.5)
Therapist
A 11 (73.3) 9 (69.2) 0.811
B 4 (26.7) 4 (30.8)

Values are presented as n (%).

Table 2.
Comparison of changes on the functional dysphagia scale before and after intervention
Experimental group Control group P
Oral phase
Pre 4.6±3.0 5.5±3.2 0.433
Post 3.0±3.4 4.4±2.8 0.113
Difference (pre-post) 1.6±1.5 1.2±1.5 0.331
P 0.006 0.020
Pharyngeal phase
Pre 29.2±12.5 32.6±14.3 0.711
Post 20.4±10.9 24.8±13.3 0.546
Difference (pre-post) 8.8±5.5 7.9±5.7 0.469
P 0.001 0.001
Total
Pre 33.8±13.1 38.2±15.7 0.419
Post 23.4±11.8 29.2±14.7 0.278
Difference (pre-post) 10.4±5.0 9.0±5.9 0.276
P 0.001 0.001

Values are presented as mean±SD.

Table 3.
Comparison of pain changes on the visual analogue scale before and after intervention
Experimental group Control group P
Pre 7.3±1.1 6.6±1.1 0.164
Post 4.9±0.8 4.7±0.9 0.675
Difference (pre-post) 2.4±0.9 1.9±0.8 0.199
P 0.001 0.001

Values are presented as mean±SD.

TOOLS
Similar articles