Leveron&Nexovas
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 14072  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (598 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 »  Materials and Me...
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusion
 »  References
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed6602    
    Printed294    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded54    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 10    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 65  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 734-742

The effect of sensory level electrical stimulation of the masseter muscle in early stroke patients with dysphagia: A randomized controlled study


1 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinic, Ministry of Health Ankara Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
2 Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Clinic, Ministry of Health Ankara Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Date of Web Publication5-Jul-2017

Correspondence Address:
Ebru K Umay
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinic, Ministry of Health, Ankara, Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/neuroindia.NI_377_16

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 


Background: Dysphagia is a serious cause of morbidity and mortality in stroke patients.
Aims: As the first study in literature, we aimed to evaluate the effects of sensory-level electrical stimulation (SES) to bilateral masseter muscles in early stroke patients with dysphagia.
Settings and Design: This study was conducted at the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinic of our hospital between 2013 and 2015.
Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight patients with dysphagia within the first month after ischemic stroke were included in this study. Patients were evaluated by bedside screening tests (Bedside Dysphagia Score, Neurological Examination Dysphagia Score, Total Dysphagia Score, and Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability test) and by flexible fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) methods. All patients were included in a traditional swallowing therapy. Patients were divided into two groups, namely the “stimulation group” and “sham group.” SES was applied to bilateral masseter muscles. Evaluation parameters were compared between the groups before and after therapy.
Statistical Analysis: The Friedman test, Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used in this study.
Results: There was a significant improvement in dysphagia severity scores evaluated by bedside screening tests and FEES in cognitive and total functionality levels except in motor functional independence level in the stimulation group. In the sham group, there were no significant changes in the evaluation parameters.
Conclusion: SES applied to bilateral masseter muscles may provide an effective treatment for both dysphagia and cognitive function in early stroke patients.


Keywords: Dysphagia, masseter muscle, sensory-level electrical stimulation, stroke


How to cite this article:
Umay EK, Yaylaci A, Saylam G, Gundogdu I, Gurcay E, Akcapinar D, Kirac Z. The effect of sensory level electrical stimulation of the masseter muscle in early stroke patients with dysphagia: A randomized controlled study. Neurol India 2017;65:734-42

How to cite this URL:
Umay EK, Yaylaci A, Saylam G, Gundogdu I, Gurcay E, Akcapinar D, Kirac Z. The effect of sensory level electrical stimulation of the masseter muscle in early stroke patients with dysphagia: A randomized controlled study. Neurol India [serial online] 2017 [cited 2022 Jul 2];65:734-42. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2017/65/4/734/209505


Key Message:
Bilateral sensory-level electrical stimulation of the masseter muscle, based on its oral and pharyngeal phase functions, provide an effective treatment for dysphagia in patients with acute stroke. Furthermore, this method may also be helpful in improving the cognitive function of these patients.




Swallowing is a sensorimotor behavior controlled by numerous components that range from the central nervous system to oesophagus, and provides the passage of food from the mouth to the stomach. The term 'dsyphagia' defines all the challenges that occur in the process during the transportation of food from the mouth to the stomach.[1]

Dysphagia is a serious cause of morbidity and mortality in stroke patients. After stroke, an apparent dysphagia was detected in 29–81% of the patients, especially during the first 3 weeks, and swallowing abnormalities in the form of slight dysphagia was noted in almost every patient.[2],[3] Post-stroke dysphagia increases the risk of dehydration, malnutrition, pulmonary complications, and the length of hospital stay, all of which lead to a poor functional recovery.[2] In addition, aspiration pneumonia occurs in 43–70% of patients with post-stroke dysphagia, with a mortality rate of up to 45%.[4] In 70% of stroke patients, pneumonia that is apparent within 72 hours of admission is almost always associated with swallowing problems. In 75% of these patients with early swallowing problems, dysphagia continues to be moderate-to-severe, and requires alternative nutritional support for up to 6 months.[5]

Therefore, an early diagnosis and intervention for post-stroke dysphagia are critical and recommended to prevent stroke-associated pneumonia. Preventing pneumonia with an early treatment of dysphagia could have a significant impact on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, functional recovery, and costs. The evaluation and management of the swallowing disorder is recommended as soon as possible in stroke patients according to the recently published guidelines.[6]

Posture and dietary modifications, oral motor exercises to strengthen oropharyngeal muscles, maneuvers of the head and neck to facilitate swallowing, and thermal and tactile stimulation to increase sensory input are the traditional treatment methods.[7] These treatment methods are widely accepted in clinical practice, but evidence supporting their effectiveness in dysphagia is limited.[8]

Therefore, there is great interest in the use of electrical stimulation for patients with dysphagia. Studies have reported that electrical stimulation may play a role in the partial/complete recovery of the impaired muscle function involved in swallowing and in the functional recovery of the affected hemisphere by the restoration mechanism. Moreover, it may facilitate cerebral reorganization as a result of stimulation of the central swallowing centers in the unaffected hemisphere by compensation mechanisms.[9] These studies were performed mostly on chronic stroke patients by using different dysphagia assessment parameters. Electrical stimulation was applied alone or as a combination therapy with different intensities, frequency, and duration for various muscles strengthening procedures without standardization.[10],[11],[12] Electrical stimulation can also be applied at the sensory level in dysphagia treatment.

In a study comparing the motor and sensory-level electrical stimulation (SES), it has been reported that the effect of motor-level stimulation was to induce muscular contraction applied to increase muscle activity. On the other hand, the effect of SES was to stimulate the peripheral sensory system to increase the afferent drive and promote cortical plasticity.[13] In addition, SES has been reported to be essential for the initiation and progression of swallowing, for maintaining of neural processes, and for stimulating a cortical reorganization.[14]

The pharyngeal phase was of particular importance in these studies and the motor-level electrical stimulation of suprahyoid and infrahyoid muscles were used to increase muscle activity. However, it has been reported that both the oral and pharyngeal stages of swallowing are impaired, especially in early stroke patients.[15],[16] Therefore, electrical stimulation of the masseter muscle, involved in both the oral and pharyngeal phase, may seem to be more appropriate for the treatment of dysphagia in these patients.

In previous studies, the clinical and electrophysiological examination revealed that the oral phase of swallowing is relatively more affected than the pharyngeal phase, especially in early stage stroke patients with cortical involvement.[16],[17] Masseter muscle, which is easily accessable, assists the pharyngeal phase muscles that are mainly active in hyolaryngeal elevation; and, its activity starts at the beginning of the oral phase and continues until the end of swallowing.[15]

Although there are no studies evaluating the effects of motor-level electrical stimulation of the masseter muscle for the treatment of dysphagia in the literature, in studies evaluating masseter muscle activity, there is some evidence that the motor-level electrical stimulation leading to recurrent masseter muscle contraction may result in effects such as tooth destruction and fracture, jaw pain, temporomandibular dysfunction, and headache.[17],[18]

In the literature, it has been reported that the sensory-level stimulation of muscles other than the masseter muscle for dysphagia treatment is well-tolerated and can be administered at home without complications.[14]

In the light of this information, this is the first study in literature that aimed to evaluate the effects of SES to bilateral masseter muscles in early stroke patients with dysphagia.


 » Materials and Methods Top


Study setting

This study was conducted at the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) and Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Clinics of our hospital between 2013 and 2015. Patients were hospitalized in the PMR clinic and all tests were conducted in the clinic.

The inclusion criteria were the following: patients aged between 45 and 75 years, who were admitted for any problem such as motor function impairment or disability, within the first month after ischemic stroke confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The diagnosis of dysphagia was obtained by evaluation of swallowing.

Patients with a history of malignancy, head and/or neck surgery, previous stroke, known pulmonary or swallowing disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, dementia or psychiatric disorder, hemorrhagic infarction, bilateral involvement, and smoking, were excluded from the study. In addition, the exclusion criteria for flexible fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) method were the presence of contagious or infectious diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis types B and C; the risk of bleeding; the presence of nasal obstruction; and, the presence of decompensated heart disease. The exclusion criteria for electrical stimulation were the presence of biomedical devices such as a cardiac pacemaker sensitive to electrical field in the body; and, the presence of serious infectious diseases similar to pneumonia.

Ninety-eight patients were included in this study. The patients and their relatives (at least one person) were informed about the study, and their written consents were obtained at the beginning of the study. The approval of the Ethical Board of the hospital was obtained, and the study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration.

The characteristics of 98 patients including their age, gender, educational status, hand dominancy, comorbidities, additive problems associated with swallowing, the infarct region, and the elapsed time after stroke were recorded.

Their educational status was noted according to the Turkish educational system as “illiterate,” “under 5-years,” “5-years,” “8-years,” “11-years,” and “more than 11 years” of education.

The stroke severity was assessed by National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). In this scale, patients were evaluated in 11 categories including consciousness, language, dysarthria, eye movements, visual field, negligence, facial paresis, proximal limb strength, extremity ataxia, and feeling. Each category was scored between 0–2 and 0–4. The total score was between 0 and 42. Motor functional status was graded from 1 to 6 using the Brunnstrom stage for upper extremity, hand, and lower extremity.

Assessment of swallowing function

Screen test

The swallowing screen test, which is routinely used in our clinic, included the neurologic examination as well as the water swallowing test (by using 10 ml water, together with O2 saturation evaluation, conducted with the pulse oximetry method, using the second finger of the unaffected hand).

The neurological status of patients was evaluated by examining several functions including head control, sitting balance, facial paralysis, gag and pharyngeal reflexes, as well as palatal and tongue movements. The Neurological Examination Dysphagia Score (NEDS) was calculated and recorded as follows: presence of head control, sitting balance, and gag and pharyngeal reflexes = 0, absence of all = 1; absence of facial paralysis = 0, its presence = 1; normal palatal movement = 0, asymmetric palatal movement = 1, absence of palatal movement = 2; and, weak tongue protrusion = 1, weak tongue lateral movement = 2. Based on the above NEDS calculations, a score of 0–3 was considered as “normal swallowing,” and a score of 4–9 as “dysphagia.”

In water swallowing test, observations and recordings were made in terms of drinking the water in one gulp or by splitting in volumes; coughing/wet voice/water flow from the mouth and presence of laryngeal elevation during or after water swallowing; and decreases in O2 saturation by 2% and more. Each of the listed disorders was assigned one point to calculate the Bedside Dysphagia Score (BDS). The score of 0–2 was considered to be “normal swallowing” and between 3 and 6 as “dysphagia.”

Total Dysphagia Score (TDS) was obtained by summing the scores individually for BDS and NEDS, according to which “normal patients” had a total score of 0–3, whereas scores of 4–15 indicated “dysphagia.”

Mann assessment swallowing ability test

Swallowing evaluation was done with the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA). Twenty-four areas were evaluated as follows: alertness, cooperation, auditory comprehension, aphasia, apraxia, dysarthria, respiratory status, respiratory rate during swallowing, saliva swallowing, lip seal, tongue movement, strength and coordination of swallowing, oral preparation, palate and gag reflexes, bolus clearance, oral transit, cough reflex, voluntary cough, voice intensity, presence or requirement of tracheostomy, pharyngeal phase of swallowing, and pharyngeal response to swallowing. The scoring was done by a physiatrist and the scale ranged from 38 to 200 points.

Flexible fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing

The test was performed by the same otolaryngology specialist using a nonducted fiberoptic nasopharyngoscope of 3.4 mm diameter, a light source, camera, monitor, and a digital video recorder (Karl Storz GmbH and Co KG, Tuttlingen, Germany). All evaluations were performed in the sitting position or an upright position, to the extent possible. No local anesthetic agent was used to avoid its effects on palatal and pharyngeal functions. Before the procedure, a lubricant gel was applied on the distal tip of the nasopharyngoscope and an antifog agent was applied on the lens. The tip of the nasopharyngoscope was inserted from the nostril, and the general pharyngeal phase was evaluated. In order to evaluate penetration and aspiration of food, and the presence of a residue, 10 ml water was used as the liquid, 10 ml of yoghurt as the semisolid, and a matchbox-sized biscuit as the solid food. Findings were recorded as video images. At the end of the examination, dysphagia level was scored from 1 to 6, according to the protocol of the endoscopic assessment of dysphagia developed by Dziewas et al. Accordingly, 1 point was considered as “normal swallowing” whereas 2–6 points were considered as “dysphagia.”

The phase of swallowing disorders (i.e., oral or pharyngeal phase disorder) were analyzed and recorded, according to results of bedside screening tests and FEES.

Assessment of functional disability

The functional disability status was assessed using the functional independence measure (FIM). The functional independence measure analyzed two different aspects of disability as motor and cognitive functions. There were 18 questions and 6 sections including self-care, sphincter control, transfers, locomotion, communication, and social cognition, with each item being scored from 1 to 7.

Study evaluation protocol

The study was performed by a group of independent experts blinded to treatment allocation. The bedside screening tests and FIM assessment were performed by the same PMR specialist (designated as the first specialist) on the day of hospital admission (1st day). Afterwards, the patients underwent endoscopic evaluation by an otolaryngology specialist blinded to physical examination findings and the the patient was referred to another PMR specialist (designated as the second specialist).

The patients were randomly allocated by block randomization, and a table of random numbers was prepared by the second PMR specialist. According to the table, patients were divided into two groups that were designated as the stimulation (group 1) and the sham (group 2) groups. After 4 weeks of treatment (on the 29th day), the initial assessment performed by the 1st PMR specialist and the otolaryngology specialists were repeated as evaluation tests.

The method for randomization was applied to all patients who were hospitalized and eligible for the study criteria between 2013 and 2015. According to the order of hospitalization, patients were numbered and grouped as 1.,4.,5.,8… for group 1, and 2.,3.,6.,7. for group 2 by using double block randomization table. Twenty-three patients from group 2, and 10 patients from group 1, were excluded after randomization because of protocol violations. These included those who were transferred to other clinics because of some medical problems (19 patients), those who were unable to continue the study due to living in different cities (10 patients); and, those who were unadapted to the rehabilitation process (4 patients).

Rehabilitation methods

All patients under the supervision of the same physiotherapist received daily care for oral hygiene, thermal (cold) and tactile stimulation, swallowing maneuvers, head and trunk positioning, dietary modification, and oral motor exercises including lips, tongue, and jaw movements. This was in accordance with the different patient swallowing characteristics and were given for 60 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 4 weeks; cognitive, respiratory, and sensorimotor functional rehabilitation programs were added to this program.

Apart from this traditional treatment, the patients in group 1 received intermittent galvanic stimulation to bilateral masseter muscles for 60 minutes a day, 5 days per week, for 4 weeks up to a total of 20 sessions (Intelect Advanced- Chattonooga, UK). In this method, after the patients were positioned in 90° supported/unsupported seating, 2 pieces of 4 × 5 cm surface electrodes were placed, one over the ramus of the mandible, and another over the masseter muscle (the chin being in the intercuspal position and in the midline).

The current stimulation intensity was established by determining the threshold sensibility using an incremental protocol and fixed during the treatment session. The sensory approach, i.e., the sensory threshold, was identified as the lowest current level at which the patient felt a tingling sensation on the skin. The amplitude of the electrical current level was approximately 4–6 mA. Patients were not instructed to perform any oropharyngeal exercises or swallowing training during the electrical stimulation treatment.

Patients in group 2 received sham stimulation, the electrodes were placed at the same positions as in active stimulation; however, the stimulator was turned off. Therefore, the patients received no current stimulation for the treatment period.

Comparisons

The dysphagia severity, determined by FEES and NEDS, BDS, total swallowing, and MASA scores, as well as FIM scores, were reassessed after treatment. In addition, the intensity of discomfort during the electrical stimulation was evaluated using a 0–100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The responses to treatments and changes between the groups were compared.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 15.0 (SPSS, Inc.; Chicago, IL, USA) for Windows. Normality of the continuous variables was assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Descriptive statistics were shown as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages (%) for nominal variables. Statistically significant differences in repeated measurements within the groups were evaluated with the Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed rank test. The Bonferroni correction was used to control possible type I errors in intragroup comparisons (P < 0.025). As none of the continuous variables were normally distributed, the Mann–Whitney U test was used for the comparison of non-normally distributed continuous variables. On the other hand, the significance of difference for nominal variables was analyzed using Fisher exact test. The results were considered significant ifthe P value < 0.05.


 » Results Top


The average age of the 98 patients [22 (22.4%) female, 76 (77.6%) male patients) included in the study was 61.59 ± 9.97 years, and the mean elapsed time after stroke was 14.52 ± 5.53 days. The mean NIHSS score of patients was 9.62 ± 4.05. The demographic and disease characteristics of patients according to the groups are presented in [Table 1]. The two groups were similar in demographics and disease characteristics (P > 0.05).
Table 1: Demographic and disease characteristics of patients according to the groups

Click here to view


The means of BDS, NEDS, TDS, and MASA scores of the patients before treatment were 5.71 ± 1.44, 6.35 ± 1.74, 10.03 ± 2.62, and 142.41 ± 27.53, respectively. The mean of dysphagia level determined by FEES was 3.75 ± 1.22, and there was no patient, assessed at level 1, being designated as normal.

The mean FIM motor functional status, cognitive function score, and the total disability score of patients were 33.15 ± 21.30, 20.42 ± 10.12, and 53.06 ± 27.33, respectively. The distribution and comparison of pretreatment evaluation parameters between the groups are shown in [Table 2]. There were no differences in the evaluation parameters between the groups (P > 0.05).
Table 2: The distribution and comparison of pre-treatment evaluation parameters between the groups

Click here to view


The oral phase of swallowing was impaired in the majority of patients (n = 96, 98%, group 1: n = 58, group 2: n = 38). Forty-four (44.9%, group 1: n = 23, group 2: n = 21) patients had an impairment of swallowing during the pharyngeal phase.

The comparison of the pre- and posttreatment measurements according to the groups are shown in [Table 3].
Table 3: Comparison of pre- and post-treatment measurements according to the groups

Click here to view


There was a significant improvement in all parameters, except for the motor FIM score in the stimulation group (group 1; P< 0.025). In group 2, there were no significant changes in the evaluation parameters (P > 0.025).

The average discomfort during the electrical stimulation was 10.15 ± 5.88, and was 10.05 ± 6.45 in group 1 and 12.10 ± 5.77 in group 2. There was no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.902). The comparison of the pre- and post treatment changes between the groups are presented in [Table 4].
Table 4: Comparison of the pre- and post-treatment changes between the groups

Click here to view


Pre- and post-treatment changes, including swallowing evaluation methods and cognitive and total functional independence scores, were significantly improved in the stimulation group (P < 0.025). There was no significant difference in the motor functional independence levels between the groups (P = 0.131).

After the treatment, 38 (38.8%) patients suffered from oral phase disorder (group 1:n = 7, group 2:n = 31) and 21 (21.4%) from pharyngeal phase disorder (group 1:n = 8, group 2:n = 13).


 » Discussion Top


In our study, there was a significant improvement in the dysphagia severity scores, evaluated by bedside screen tests and FEES in cognitive and total functionality levels (except for motor functional independence level), in the stimulation group. In the sham group, there were no significant changes in the evaluation parameters. There was no difference between the groups in terms of discomfort felt by the patients during the course of the treatment.

Functional treatment of dysphagia is based on restoration, compensation, and adaptation mechanisms. Electrical stimulation may play a role in the partial/complete recovery of impaired muscle function involved in the act of swallowing as well as in the functional recovery of the affected hemisphere by restoration mechanism, provided that reorganization occurs as a result of stimulation of the central swallowing centers in the unaffected hemisphere by compensation mechanisms.[9]

In previous studies evaluating the effectiveness of electrical stimulation in stroke patients with dysphagia, increasing the muscle activity, as a primary effect of stimulation, was of particular importance. In these studies, stimulation of suprahyoid and infrahyoid muscles, which are active during the pharyngeal phase, were preferred. They helped in improving the hyolaryngeal elevation, thus preventing aspiration, one of the most important consequences of dysphagia.[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]

Electrical stimulation has been shown to be effective primarily in chronic stroke patients with dysphagia in uncontrolled studies, when applying electrical stimulation alone at different intensities. The suprahyoid and infrahyoid muscles were stimulated using a broad range of therapy sessions, from 3 to 40, using videofloroscopy (VF) and FEES as aspiration parameters, as in this study. Alternative nutritional method usage and dietary modifications were also evaluated.[22],[23] However, in some of the comparison studies, it has been reported that traditional therapies such as thermal tactile stimulation and modifications, as well as electrical stimulation were both equally effective, and there was no difference between the methods;[10],[12],[21],[24] whereas, other studies claimed that these methods were not effective when performed alone.[26] In the recent years, a majority of studies have proposed that a combination of therapies is more effective than monotherapy.[8],[25],[27],[28]

Therefore, we preferred to study the combination therapy, that included the traditional methods as well as electrical stimulation, and evaluated patients by the penetration/aspiration scale of FEES that is easily applicable at the bedside to objectively measure the effectiveness of therapy. As a result, we found that the combination therapy is more effective than the traditional method.

The above mentioned studies were mostly performed during the chronic phase dysphagia in stroke patients with predominant aspiration signs. It is reasonable to think that the therapy for pharyngeal phase muscles is effective in chronic stroke patients.A thereputic benefit may be obtained despite of disuse atrophy of these muscles.

However, some of the previous studies reported that, regardless of the pharyngeal phase disorder, the oral phase disorder was also found up to 97% patients, especially in early stroke patients.[16],[27],[29] Moreover, studies have reported that, in order to ensure a sufficient control of swallowing, swallowing therapies for the oral phase are essential for the initiation and continuation of swallowing, as well as for maintenance of the neural processes.[16],[29]

The masseter muscle was selected for electrical stimulation in our study. Although there are many oral phase muscles, such as the orbicularis oris and tongue muscles, that play a very significant role in preparing and transferring the bolus, the masseter muscle is a large muscle which is easily accessible. Thus, a surface electrode may be easily applied to it. Its stimulation does not require any additional patient positioning or cooperation. There is no discomfort while performing the procedure, such as opening the mouth.[15],[30]

Despite the fact that masseter muscle is considered as a chewing muscle that is affected in the oral phase, it also has an important action during swallowing.[30] The activity of the masseter muscle starts at the beginning of the oral phase; then it assists the pharyngeal phase muscles that are mainly active in hyolaryngeal elevation; and, its activity continues until the end of swallowing.[15] In other words, it has an activity during both the oral and pharyngeal phases. Moreover, without the activity of the masseter muscle, insufficient supra- and infrahyoid muscles activity and prolonged swallowing time have been reported in trials evaluating the activity of the swallowing muscles.[15],[30]

These results support our decision in the masseteric muscle selection for electrical stimulation. Thus, the stimulation of masseter muscle, which is active both in the oral and pharyngeal phase, is more effective than targeting the pharyngeal phase muscles only.

The above mentioned studies also preferred motor-level stimulation due to the inclusion of patients with chronic stroke. In studies including the early stroke patients, as was done in our study, both the combination therapy (the traditional method and motor-level electrical stimulation) and only motor-level electrical stimulation to pharyngeal phase muscles were compared; these studies reported an improvement in dysphagia severity within 15 to 18 total therapy sessions.[28],[31]

Although, no study has reported a method similar to our work in the literature, in studies using SES, 5 to 72 session of SES (alone or in combination) of supra- and infrahyoid muscles, evaluated by VF/FEES, have been shown to be effective in decreasing the dysphagia level and aspiration frequency in chronic stroke patients, with no adverse events.[14],[31],[32] These studies, having results similar to our study, indicated the efficacy of both motor and SES stimulation in the treatment of dysphagia.

The studies evaluating the motor activity of the masseter muscle demonstrated tooth destruction, jaw pain, temporomandibular dysfunction, and headache due to repetitive masseter muscle contractions.[19],[20] It has been reported that the anatomical relationship between the masseter muscle and mandible, teeth, and temporomandibular joint may lead to such findings. Therefore, in our study we chose the stimulation of masseter muscle on the sensory-level rather than the motor-level.

Other studies revealed that the SES can also increase muscle activity, and can also enhance sensory input to swallowing center by stimulating muscle proprioceptors, affecting the initiation of swallowing and in improving the swallowing function that occurs after cortical reorganization.[8],[26],[33] In two recent reviews, evaluating both the motor and sensory-level stimulation studies, it was proposed that the effect of motor-level stimulation may be secondary to the sensory input increase.[8],[33]

In this study, similar to the results published in literature, there was a significant improvement of dysphagia in the SES plus traditional therapy group compared to soley the traditional group, and there was no significant difference related to the discomfort level during therapy between the two groups. In addition, no adverse events were observed due to the masseter muscle stimulation.

A different aspect of our study was to assess the general cognitive and motor functional disability of patients. Unexpectedly, we found that there was a significant improvement in the cognitive function in the stimulation group, which may indirectly support the idea of cortical reorganization by the sensory inputs.

Although there is no study investigating the association between cognitive function and the stimulation of the masseter muscle, animal studies assessing the effect of sensory stimulation on cognitive function have shown that the neural plasticity induced by growth factors and modulatory neurotransmitters can increase cognitive function.[34] Furthermore, there are also studies indicating that the sensory-level transcutaneous electrical stimulation applied on the hand and foot improved the cognitive functions, such as attention, perception, memory, relearning, and language in patients who have suffered from stroke or brain injury.[35]

Moreover, the areas associated with swallowing function that were activated during the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study were the primary sensorimotor cortex, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the insula and frontal operculum, the anterior cingulate cortex, the supplementary motor areas in both hemispheres, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex that were related to both swallowing and cognitive functions (e.g., alertness, attention, and memory).[36] Cognitive function can also be represented in bilateral hemispheres as may be the swallowing function, and this may suggest that cortical reorganization may also ocur for cognitive functions following masseteric stimulation.

Study limitations

First, we have planned our work considering the effects of masseter muscle on swallowing, as has been mentioned above. However, there are other branches of sensory nerves in this region of stimulation. We have not conducted an objective electrophysiological evaluation of the masseter muscle. Second, the purpose of our study was to evaluate the effect of the masseter muscle stimulation. We did not use stimulation additionally or alternately on the infrahyoid or suprahyoid muscles. If we had used these applications, the efficiency of the treatment would perhaps have increased. Third, we did not design a fMRI study to evaluate the cortical involvement objectively. In addition, we were unable to quantify the neurological status on a long-term follow-up of our patients. Large-scale, multicentric studies are needed to conclusively validate our results.


 » Conclusion Top


Aspiration is one of the most important consequences of dysphagia, increasing the morbidity and mortality associated with it. Aspiration specifically refers to the pharyngeal phase disorders. However, voluntary oral phase is important in terms of initiating and maintining swallowing; moreover, it is often impaired in early stages of stroke.

Therefore, selecting the masseter muscle for electrical stimulation therapy based on its oral and pharyngeal phase functions, and using SES for generation of cortical reorganization may provide an effective treatment for dysphagia in stroke patients. Furthermore, this method can also be helpful in improving the cognitive function of these patients who have suffered from stroke.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 » References Top

1.
Falsetti P, Acciai C, Palilla R, Bosi M, Carpinteri F, Zingarelli A, et al. Oropharyngeal dysphagia after stroke: Incidence, diagnosis, and clinical predictors in patients admitted to a neurorehabilitation unit. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;18:329-35.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Martino R, Foley N, Bhogal S, Diamant N, Speechley M, Teasell R. Dysphagia after stroke: Incidence, diagnosis, and pulmonary complications. Stroke 2005;36:2756-63.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Logemann JA. Update on clinical trials in dysphagia. Dysphagia 2006;21:116-20.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Li L, Zhang L, Xu W, Hu J. Risk assessment of ischemic stroke associated pneumonia. World Emerg Med 2014;5:209-13.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ickenstein GW, Hohlig C, Prosiegel M, Koch H, Dziewas R, Bodechtel U, et al. Prediction of outcome in neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia within 72 hours of acute stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2012;21:569-76.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, Bruno A, Connors JJ, Demaerschalk BM, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2013;44:870-947.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Nakamura T, Fujishima I. Usefulness of ice massage in triggering the swallow reflex. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;22:378-82.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Rofes L, Cola PC, Clav P. The effects of sensory stimulation on neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia. J Gastroenterol Hepatol Res 2014;3:1066-72.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Oh BM, Kim DY, Paik NJ. Recovery of swallowing function is accompanied by the expansion of the cortical map. Int J Neurosci 2007;117:1215-27.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Bulow M, Speyer R, Baijens L, Woisard V, Ekberg O. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) in stroke patients with oral and pharyngeal dysfunction. Dysphagia 2008;23:302-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Park JW, Kim Y, Oh JC, Lee HJ. Effortful swallowing training combined with electrical stimulation in post-stroke dysphagia: A randomized controlled study. Dysphagia 2012;27: 521-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Tan C, Liu Y, Li W, Liu J, Chen L. Transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation can improve swallowing function in patients with dysphagia caused by non-stroke diseases: A metaanalysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40: 472-80.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Rofes L, Arreola V, Lopez I, Martin A, Sebastian M, Ciurana A, et al. Effect of surface sensory and motor electrical stimulation on chronic poststroke oropharyngeal dysfunction. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013;25:888-e-701.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Verin E, Maltete D, Ouahchi Y, Marie JP, Hannequin D, Massardier EG, et al. Submental sensitive transcutaneous electrical stimulation (SSTES) at home in neurogenic oropharyngeal dysphagia: A pilot study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2011;54:366-75.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.
Pernambuco Lde A, Silva HJ, Lima LM, Cunha RA, Santos Vda S, Cunha DA, et al. Electrical activity of masseter muscle in young adults during swallowing of liquid. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 2011;23:214-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Teismann IK, Suntrup S, Warnecke T, Steinsträter O, Fischer M, Flöel A, et al. Cortical swallowing processing in early subacute stroke. BMC Neurol 2011;11:34.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Umay EK, Unlu E, Saylam GK, Cakcı A, Korkmaz H. Evaluation of dysphagia in early stroke patients by bedside, endoscopic and electrophysiological methods. Dysphagia 2013;28:395-403.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Unlu E, Koker C, Umay EK, Kocer GB, Comoglu S, Karaahmet O. The role of electrophysiologic evaluation in dysphagia diagnosis in acute stroke patients. Int J Phys Med Rehabil 2014;2:199.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Watanabe K, Watanabe M. Activity of jaw-opening and jaw-closing muscles and their influence on dentofacial morphological features in normal adults. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:873-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Lavigne GJ, Kato T, Kolta A, Sessle BJ. Neurobiological mechanisms involved in sleep bruxism. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2003;14:30-46.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.
Permsirivanich W, Tipchatyotin S, Wongchai M, Leelamanit V, Setthawatcharawanich S, Sathirapanya P, et al. Comparing the effects of rehabilitation swallowing therapy vs. neuromuscular electrical stimulation therapy among stroke patients with persistent pharyngeal dysphagia: A randomized controlled study. J Med Assoc Thai 2009;92:259-65.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Jayasekeran V, Singh S, Tyrrell P, Michou E, Jefferson S, Mistry S, et al. Adjunctive functional pharyngeal electrical stimulation reverses swallowing disability after brain lesions. Gastroenterology 2010;138:1737-46.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.
Gallas S, Marie JP, Leroi AM, Verin E. Sensory transcutaneous electrical stimulation improves post-stroke dysphagic patients. Dysphagia 2010;25:291-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.
Xia W, Zheng C, Lei Q, Tang Z, Hua Q, Zhang Y, et al. Treatment of post-stroke dysphagia by VitalStim therapy coupled with conventional swallowing training. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci 2011;31:73-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Sun SF, Hsu CW, Lin HS, Sun HP, Chang PH, Hsieh WL, et al. Combined Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) with Fiber optic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) and Traditional Swallowing Rehabilitation in the Treatment of Stroke-Related Dysphagia. Dysphagia 2013;28:557-66.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.
Huang KL, Liu TY, Huang YC, Leong CP, Lin WC, Pong YP. Functional Outcome in Acute Stroke Patients with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia after Swallowing Therapy. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2014;23:2547-53.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.
Li L, Li Y, Huang R, Yin J, Shen Y, Shi J. The value of adding transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation (VitalStim) to traditional therapy for post-stroke dysphagia: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2015;51:71-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Lee KW, Kim SB, Lee JH, Lee SJ, Ri JW, Park JG. The effect of early neuromuscular electrical stimulation therapy in acute/subacute ıschemic stroke patients with dysphagia. Ann Rehabil Med 2014;38:153-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Ebihara S, Ebihara T, Yamasaki M, Kohzuki M. Stimulating oral and nasal chemoreceptors for preventing aspiration pneumonia in the elderly. Yakugaku Zasshi 2011;131:1677-81.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Hiraoka K. Effect of teeth clenching on swallowing motor patterns in humans. Int J Neurosci 2006;116:1005-12.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Kushner DS, Peters K, Eroglu ST, Perless-Carroll M, Johnson-Greene D. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation efficacy in acute stroke feeding tube-dependent dysphagia during inpatient rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2013;92:486-95.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Furuta T, Takemura M, Tsujita J, Oku Y. Interferential electric stimulation applied to the neck increases swallowing frequency. Dysphagia 2012;27:94-100.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Poorjavad M, Moghadam ST, Ansari NN, Daemi M. Surface electrical stimulation for treating swallowing disorders after stroke: A review of the stimulation intensity levels and the electrode placements. Stroke Res Treat 2014; 2014:918057.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Harada N, Narimatsu N, Kurihara H, Nakagata N, Okajima K. Stimulation of sensory neurons improves cognitive function by promoting the hippocampal production of insulin-like growth factor-I in mice. Transl Res 2009;154:90-102.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Johansson BB. Multisensory stimulation in stroke rehabilitation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:60.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Hamdy S, Mikulis D, Crawley A, Xue S, Law H, Henry S, et al. Cortical activations during human volitional swallowing: An event related fMRI study. Am J Physiol 1999;277:G219-25.  Back to cited text no. 36
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]

This article has been cited by
1 An overview of dysphagia rehabilitation for stroke patients
Klayne Cunha Matos, Vanessa Fernandes de Oliveira, Paula Luanna Carvalho de Oliveira, Pedro Braga Neto
Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 A Systematic Review of Reported Methods of Stimulating Swallowing Function and their Classification
Satoru Ebihara, Toru Naito
The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine. 2022; 256(1): 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Post-stroke Dysphagia: Prognosis and Treatment–A Systematic Review of RCT on Interventional Treatments for Dysphagia Following Subacute Stroke
Philipp Balcerak, Sydney Corbiere, Richard Zubal, Georg Kägi
Frontiers in Neurology. 2022; 13
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Neurostimulation in People with Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials—Part I: Pharyngeal and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation
Renée Speyer, Anna-Liisa Sutt, Liza Bergström, Shaheen Hamdy, Bas Joris Heijnen, Lianne Remijn, Sarah Wilkes-Gillan, Reinie Cordier
Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(3): 776
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Focal Muscle Vibration Method Application in Recovery of the Upper Limb Function in Patients with Cerebral Stroke in the Early Recovery Period
Olga V. Fuchizhi, Marina A. Shurupova, Galina E. Ivanova
Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2022; 21(1): 34
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 The Application of Physiotherapy in Cerebral Stroke from the Evidence-Based Medicine Standtpoint
Natalya V. Karachintseva, Elena Yu. Mozheyko
Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2021; 20(1): 27
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Association between swallowing disorders and cognitive disorders in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Shiva Ebrahimian Dehaghani, Afsaneh Doosti, Morteza Zare
Psychogeriatrics. 2021; 21(4): 668
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 European Stroke Organisation and European Society for Swallowing Disorders guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of post-stroke dysphagia
Rainer Dziewas, Emilia Michou, Michaela Trapl-Grundschober, Avtar Lal, Ethem Murat Arsava, Philip M Bath, Pere Clavé, Jörg Glahn, Shaheen Hamdy, Sue Pownall, Antonio Schindler, Margaret Walshe, Rainer Wirth, David Wright, Eric Verin
European Stroke Journal. 2021; 6(3): LXXXIX
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Synchronized with Chewing Exercises on Bite Force and Masseter Muscle Thickness in Community-Dwelling Older Adults in South Korea: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ji-Su Park, Young-Jin Jung, Min-Ji Kim
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(13): 4902
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke
Philip M Bath, Han Sean Lee, Lisa F Everton
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018; 2018(10)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow