Anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology of dysphagia.

Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Acta oto-rhino-laryngologica Belgica (Impact Factor: 0.36). 02/1994; 48(2):97-117.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This is a review paper examining the pathogenesis of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Pharyngeal anatomy and physiology are discussed along with a detailed description of the neuronal architecture and function of the medullary swallowing center. The oropharyngeal swallow is then examined in biomechanical terms emphasizing that the swallow is comprised of several elements (velopharyngeal closure, upper esophageal sphincter opening, closure of the laryngeal vestibule, tongue loading, tongue pulsion and pharyngeal clearance) each of which can be compromised, causing dysphagia. The key modality for evaluating patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia is the videofluoroscopic swallowing study which is analyzed according to the efficacy with which these functional elements of the swallow are accomplished. Specific therapy can then be addressed toward correcting dysfunctional elements.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Orally disintegrating tablets (ODTs), also known as fast melts, quick melts, fast disintegrating and orodispersible systems, have the unique property of disintegrating in the mouth in seconds without chewing and the need of water and are thus assumed to improve patient compliance. Conventional methods like direct compression, wet granulation, moulding, spray-drying, freeze-drying and sublimation were used to prepare ODTs. New advanced technologies like Orasolv®, Durasolv®, Wowtab®, Flashtab®, Zydis®, Flashdose®, Oraquick®, Lyoc®, Advatab®, Frosta®, Quick-Disc® and Nanomelt® have been introduced by some pharmaceutical companies for the production of ODTs. The main objective of this review is to give a comprehensive insight into conventional and recent technologies used for the preparation of ODTs.
    Acta Pharmaceutica 06/2011; 61(2):117-39. · 1.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To date, the details of human sensory innervation to the pharynx and upper airway have not been demonstrated. In this study, a single human oro- and laryngopharynx obtained from autopsy was processed with a whole-mount nerve staining technique, Sihler's stain, to determine its entire sensory nerve supply. The Sihler's stain rendered all mucosa and soft tissue translucent while counterstaining nerves. The stained specimen was then dissected and the nerves were traced from their origins to the terminal branches. It was found that the sensory innervation of the human pharynx is organized into discrete primary branches that innervate specific areas, although these areas are often connected by small neural anastomoses. The density of innervation varied, with some areas receiving almost no identifiable nerve supply (e.g., posterior wall of the hypopharynx) and certain areas contained much higher density of sensory nerves: the posterior tonsillar pillars; the laryngeal surface of the epiglottis; and the postcricoid and arytenoid regions. The posterior tonsillar pillar was innervated by a dense plexus formed by the pharyngeal branches of the IX and X nerves. The epiglottis was densely innervated by the internal superior laryngeal nerve (ISLN) and IX nerve. Finally, the arytenoid and postcricoid regions were innervated by the ISLN. The postcricoid region had higher density of innervation than the arytenoid area. The use of the Sihler's stain allowed the entire sensory nerve supply of the pharyngeal areas in a human to be demonstrated for the first time. The areas of dense sensory innervation are the same areas that are known to be the most sensitive for triggering reflex swallowing or glottic protection. The data would be useful for further understanding swallowing reflex and guiding sensory reinnervation of the pharynx to treat neurogenic dysphagia and aspiration disorders. Anat Rec 258:406–420, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
    The Anatomical Record 03/2000; 258(4):406 - 420.
  • Source
    La radiologia medica 09/2008; 113(6):923-940. · 1.46 Impact Factor