Study on the treatment of dysphagia after stroke with electromyographic biofeedback intensive training

Figure 1 Comparison of the swallowing disorder score and penetration-aspiration scale score. All statistical data in this study were entered into excel software by the first author and corresponding author respectively, and the statistical processing software was SPSS 25.0 for calculation, expressed as the measurement value of the mean ± SD, does not meet the the data with normal distribution was described by M (QR), and the Mann-Whitney test was used. The data in line with the normal distribution used repeated measures analysis of variance. It was found that there was no significant difference in the swallowing disorder score (VGF) score and Rosenbek penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) score between the three groups before treatment (P > 0.05); after 4 wk of treatment, it was found that the VGF scores of the three groups of patients were all increased compared with before, and the PAS scores were significantly improved (P < 0.05). Among them, the effective rate of the intensive electromyographic biofeedback (EMGBF) group was higher than that of the conventional group (P < 0.05). Compared with the EMGBF group, the training group was significantly improved, and the intensive EMGBF group improved the PAS score compared with the EMGBF group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The VGF score of the enhanced EMGBF group was improved, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). A: The swallowing disorder score; B: Rosenbek penetration-aspiration scale score. EMGBF: Electromyographic biofeedback; VGF: The swallowing disorder score; PAS: Rosenbek penetration-aspiration scale.

Figure 2 Comparison of the forward and upward movement speed of the hyoid bone. All statistical data in this study were entered into excel software by the first author and the corresponding author respectively, and the statistical processing software was SPSS 25.0 for calculation, expressed as the measurement of mean ± SD. The data that did not conform to the normal distribution were described by M (QR), and the Mann-Whitney test was used. The data that conformed to the normal distribution were found using repeated measures analysis of variance. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). After 4 wk of treatment, it was found that the forward and upward movement speed of the hyoid bone in the three groups was significantly improved compared with the previous one. The difference in movement speed between groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05), among which the forward and upward movement rates of the hyoid bone in the electromyographic biofeedback (EMGBF) group and the enhanced EMGBF group were significantly higher than those in the conventional group, and the forward and upward movement of the hyoid bone in the enhanced EMGBF group was higher than that in the EMGBF group. The rate improved significantly, and the statistics showed that the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). A: Forward movement speed of hyoid bone; B: Upward movement speed of hyoid bone. EMGBF: Electromyographic biofeedback.

Figure 3 Comparison of standardized swallowing assessment and videofluoroscopic dysphagia scale scores. All statistical data in this study were entered into excel software by the first author and the corresponding author respectively, and the statistical processing software was SPSS 25.0 for calculation, and expressed as the measurement value of the mean ± SD, which did not meet the positive. The data of the normal distribution were described by M (QR), and the Mann-Whitney test was used. The data conforming to the normal distribution was analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance. It was found that there was no significant difference in the standardized swallowing assessment (SSA) and videofluoroscopic dysphagia scale (VDS) scores between the three groups before and after treatment (P > 0.05), after 4 wk of treatment, it was found that the SSA and VDS scores of the three groups were significantly improved compared with the previous ones, and the difference between the three groups was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). A: SSA score; B: VDS score. EMGBF: Electromyographic biofeedback; SSA: Standardized swallowing assessment; VDS: Videofluoroscopic dysphagia scale.