Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in pediatrics: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the state-of-art regarding the use of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in pediatrics, specifically investigating FEES feasibility, safety, diagnostic accuracy, and protocols. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched for original studies on the pediatric population that instrumentally assessed swallowing function using FEES. A hand-search of the references of included studies was performed. Data on the population, feasibility of endoscope insertion and bolus trials, adverse events, sensitivity and specificity, and FEES equipment and protocol were extracted. The quality of the studies was assessed using the checklists of the Johanna Briggs Institute. Selection of the studies, data extraction, and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent researchers. RESULTS: Eighty-two reports from 81 studies were included. The mean overall quality of the studies was 80 % (17-100 %). The feasibility of endoscope insertion was high (89%-100 %), while the feasibility of bolus trials varied from 40 % to 100 %. Adverse events were excessive crying (8 studies), irritability or agitation (4 studies), transitory oxygen desaturations (3 studies, 1.2-6.7 % of the patients), epistaxis (3 studies, 0.8-3.3 % of the patients), increased heart rate (1 study, 1 patient), vomiting (1 study, 1 patient), hypertonia (1 study), and hypersalivation (1 study). No major complications were reported. Using VFSS as the reference standard, FEES was generally found to be less sensitive (25-94 %) but more specific (75-100 %) for aspiration, whereas the reverse was true for penetration (sensitivity 76-100 %, specificity 44-83 %). FEES protocols were highly heterogeneous with poor reporting. CONCLUSION: FEES is a safe, accurate, and generally feasible examination in the pediatric population with suspected dysphagia. However, a consensus on the best FEES protocol for clinical practice and research is currently lacking.