• 1. Watrous BJ, Suter PF. Normal swallowing in the dog: a cineradiographic study. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1979; 20: 99109.

  • 2. Pollard RE, Marks SL, Davidson A, et al. Quantitative videofluoroscopic evaluation of pharyngeal function in the dog. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2000; 41: 409412.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Pollard RE, Marks SL, Leonard R, et al. Preliminary evaluation of the pharyngeal constrictor ratio (PCR) for fluoroscopic determination of pharyngeal constriction in dysphagic dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2007; 48: 221226.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Davidson AP, Pollard RE, Bannasch DL, et al. Inheritance of cricopharyngeal dysfunction in Golden Retrievers. Am J Vet Res 2004; 65: 344349.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Marks SL. Oropharyngeal dysphagia. In: Bonagura JD, Twedt DC, eds. Kirk's current veterinary therapy XV. St Louis: Elsevier Saunders Co, 2014;495500.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Ramsey D, Smithard D, Kalra L. Silent aspiration: what do we know? Dysphagia 2005; 20: 218225.

  • 7. Allen J, White CJ, Leonard R, et al. Effect of cricopharyngeus muscle surgery on the pharynx. Laryngoscope 2010; 120: 14981503.

  • 8. Kendall KA, McKenzie S, Leonard RJ, et al. Timing of events in normal swallowing: a videofluoroscopic study. Dysphagia 2000; 15: 7483.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Langmore SE, Schatz K, Olsen N. Fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing safety: a new procedure. Dysphagia 1988; 2: 216219.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Aviv JE, Kaplan ST, Thomson JE, et al. The safety of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing with sensory testing (FEESST): an analysis of 500 consecutive evaluations. Dysphagia 2000; 15: 3944.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Rakestraw PC, Hackett RP, Ducharme NG, et al. Arytenoid cartilage movement in resting and exercising horses. Vet Surg 1991; 20: 122127.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Hackett RP, Ducharme NG, Fubini SL, et al. The reliability of endoscopic examination in assessment of arytenoid cartilage movement in horses. Part I. Subjective and objective laryngeal evaluation. Vet Surg 1991; 20: 174179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Ducharme NG, Hackett RP, Fubini SL, et al. The reliability of endoscopic examination in assessment of arytenoid cartilage movement in horses. Part II. Influence of side of examination, reexamination, and sedation. Vet Surg 1991; 20: 180184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Anderson DE, Gaughan EM, Debowes RM, et al. Effects of chemical restraint on the endoscopic appearance of laryngeal and pharyngeal anatomy and sensation in cattle. Am J Vet Res 1994; 55: 11961200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Radlinsky MG, Mason DE, Hodgson D. Transnasal laryngoscopy for the diagnosis of laryngeal paralysis in dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2004; 40: 211215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Radlinsky MG, Williams J, Frank PM, et al. Comparison of three clinical techniques for the diagnosis of laryngeal paralysis in dogs. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 434438.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Bolser DC, Hey HA, Chapman RW. Influence of central antitussive drugs on the cough motor pattern. J Appl Physiol 1999; 86: 10171024.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Jackson AM, Tobias K, Long C, et al. Effects of various anesthetic agents on laryngeal motion during laryngoscopy in normal dogs. Vet Surg 2004; 33: 102106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Park WY, Lee TH, Ham NS, et al. Adding endoscopist-directed flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing to the videofluoroscopic swallowing study increased the detection rates of penetration, aspiration, and pharyngeal residue. Gut Liver 2015; 9: 623628.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Kelly AM, Drinnan MJ, Leslie P. Assessing penetration and aspiration: how do videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare? Laryngoscope 2007; 117: 17231727.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Kelly AM, Leslie P, Beale T, et al. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videofluoroscopy: does examination type influence perception of pharyngeal residue severity? Clin Otolaryngol 2006; 31: 425432.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Langmore SE, Schatz K, Olson N. Endoscopic and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing and aspiration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991; 100: 678681.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Leder SB, Sasaki CT, Burrell MI. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of dysphagia to identify silent aspiration. Dysphagia 1998; 13: 1921.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Feasibility of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in healthy dogs

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 2 William R. Pritchard Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
  • | 3 Center for Voice and Swallowing, Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To assess feasibility of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in awake dogs, determine whether specific variables associated with the oropharyngeal phase of swallowing can be recognized, and evaluate the safety and tolerability of FEES.

ANIMALS 6 healthy client-owned large- and giant-breed adult dogs.

PROCEDURES A topical anesthetic was applied to the nasal passage of each dog, and a fiberoptic endoscope was passed transnasally until the tip of the scope was positioned in the oropharynx. All dogs voluntarily drank colored water followed by consumption of a commercial canned diet and then a kibble diet mixed with food color. During each swallow, laryngeal and pharyngeal anatomic structures were evaluated and depth of bolus flow prior to the pharyngeal phase of swallowing was assessed. Evidence of bolus retention in the vallecula or pyriform sinuses and laryngeal penetration of the bolus were recorded.

RESULTS FEES was completed without major adverse events and was tolerated well by all 6 dogs. Mild, self-limiting epistaxis was noted for 2 dogs. The nasopharynx, oropharynx, and hypopharynx were observed in all dogs; movement of food boluses through the esophagus was observed in 2 dogs, and food boluses in the stomach were visible in 1 dog. Pharyngeal and laryngeal function was considered physiologically normal in all dogs.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE FEES appeared to be a feasible diagnostic tool for use in large- and giant-breed dogs. Studies are warranted in dogs with oropharyngeal dysphagia to determine whether FEES can be tolerated and whether it can augment videofluoroscopy findings.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Marks (slmarks@ucdavis.edu).