Pediatric Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing: Critical Analysis of Implementation and Future Perspectives.

This study aimed to critically review pediatric swallowing assessment data to determine the future need for standardized procedures. A retrospective analysis of 152 swallowing examinations in 128 children aged 21 days to 18 years was performed. The children were presented at a university dysphagia center between January 2015 and June 2020 for flexible-endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Descriptive analysis was conducted for the sample, swallowing pathologies, diagnosis, and missing values. Using binary logistic regression, the relationship between dysphagia and underlying diseases was investigated. The largest group with a common diagnosis in the cohort were children with genetic syndromes (n = 43). Sixty-nine children were diagnosed with dysphagia and 59 without dysphagia. The non-dysphagic group included 15 patients with a behavioral feeding disorder. The presence of an underlying disease significantly increased the chance of a swallowing problem (OR 13.08, 95% CI 3.66 to 46.65, p = .00). In particular, the categories genetic syndrome (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 5.88) and neurologic disorder (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.31 to 13.69) were associated with higher odds for dysphagia. All pediatric FEES were performed without complications, with a completion rate of 96.7%, and with a broad variability of implementation. Several charts lacked information concerning swallowing pathologies, though. Generally, a more standardized protocol and documentation for pediatric FEES is needed to enable better comparability of studies on epidemiology, assessment, and treatment outcomes in future.

Implementation of Pediatric Flexible-Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Research.

BACKGROUND: Although pediatric flexible-endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) has developed into a standard in dysphagia diagnostics, there are no valid protocols and procedures for children available to date. OBJECTIVE: This systematic PROSPERO-registered review aimed to identify implementation protocols for pediatric FEES described in research studies, and to analyze them in detail concerning procedural steps, equipment, and reported outcome. METHODS: Included were all studies reporting a pediatric FEES protocol for children aged 0-18 years, if they described at least two criteria defined in advance. The databases MEDLINE and CINHAL were searched systematically from January 2000 to February 2021. Risk of bias for included studies was assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. A narrative synthesis of the FEES protocols was conducted and the results compared in tabular form. RESULTS: In total 22 studies were included, reporting on FEES in 1547 infants, children, and adolescents with a wide range of diagnoses. It was possible to identify protocols related to all age groups in general as well as to particular groups such as breastfed or bottle-fed infants. None of the included studies demonstrated a good methodological quality; all studies had missing data. Uniform implementation for sub-groups could not be determined. The reported outcome of FEES examinations could not be compared. DISCUSSION: None of the included studies showed good methodological quality and a significant amount of data were missing; the review still offers a systematic basis for future research to close the serious gap in the area of pediatric FEES. A proposal is made for a minimum requirement for pediatric FEES protocols in scientific studies.