SpringerLink
Log in

Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES): A Standardized Approach to Rating Pharyngeal Residue, Penetration, and Aspiration During FEES

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Dysphagia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to describe the development of the Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES)—a standardized method to rate pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration during FEES. As a secondary aim, we explored the feasibility of training novices to interpret FEES using VASES. Literature review and consensus panel discussions were used to develop standardized rules for VASES. A training protocol was developed and criterion ratings were established. Twenty-five novice raters completed VASES training and pre-/post-training assessments. Statistical analyses were used to examine pre- to post-training differences in the accuracy, reliability, and time to rate each video clip using VASES. Four sets of VASES rules were developed, including ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ to rate FEES. Large, significant post-training improvements in rating accuracy were observed across all seven VASES outcome measures (Cohen’s d range 0.74–1.59). Additionally, inter-rater reliability increased for four of the seven outcome measures, and the amount of time to rate each video clip decreased from 2.6 min pre-training to 1.5 min post-training. VASES is a standardized FEES rating method used to enhance the subjective analysis of pharyngeal residue, penetration, and aspiration. It can be feasibly taught to novice raters with a high level of success and may be an effective method to analyze swallowing safety and efficiency in clinical and research practices. Future research is needed to test the validity of VASES by examining its relationship with other validated FEES rating scales.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Langmore SE, Schatz K, Olsen N. Fiberoptic endoscopic examination of swallowing safety: a new procedure. Dysphagia. 1988;2(4):216–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Langmore SE. History of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing for evaluation and management of pharyngeal dysphagia: changes over the years. Dysphagia. 2017;32(1):27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9775-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hiss SG, Postma GN. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Laryngoscope. 2003;113:1386–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bevan K, Griffiths MV. Chronic aspiration and laryngeal competence. J Laryngol Otol. 1989;103(2):196–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Langmore S, Schatz K, Olson N. Endoscopic and videofluoroscopic evaluations of swallowing and aspiration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991;100(8):678–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348949110000815.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Curtis JA, Laus J, Yung KC, Courey MS. Static endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: transoral endoscopy during clinical swallow evaluations. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(10):2291–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fattori B, Giusti P, Mancini V, et al. Comparison between videofluoroscopy, fiberoptic endoscopy and scintigraphy for diagnosis of oro-pharyngeal dysphagia. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2016;36(5):395–402. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-829.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Armstrong ES, Reynolds J, Carroll S, Sturdivant C, Suterwala MS. Comparing videofluoroscopy and endoscopy to assess swallowing in bottle-fed young infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2019;39(9):1249–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-019-0438-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pavithran J, Puthiyottil IV, Kumar M, et al. Exploring the utility of fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing in young children—a comparison with videofluoroscopy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110339.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rao N, Brady SL, Chaudhuri G, Donzelli JJ, Wesling MW. Gold-standard? Analysis of the videofluoroscopic and fiberoptic endoscopic swallow examinations. J Appl Res Clin Exp Ther. 2003;3(1):89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kelly AM, Leslie P, Beale T, Payten C, Drinnan MJ. Fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videofluoroscopy: does examination type influence perception of pharyngeal residue severity? Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31(5):425–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01292.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kelly AM, Drinnan MJ, Leslie P. Assessing penetration and aspiration: how do videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing compare? Laryngoscope. 2007;117(10):1723–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e318123ee6a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pisegna JM, Langmore SE. Parameters of instrumental swallowing evaluations: describing a diagnostic dilemma. Dysphagia. 2016;31(3):462–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9700-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scharitzer M, Roesner I, Pokieser P, Weber M, Denk-Linnert DM. Simultaneous radiological and fiberendoscopic evaluation of swallowing (“SIRFES”) in patients after surgery of oropharyngeal/laryngeal cancer and postoperative dysphagia. Dysphagia. 2019;34(6):852–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-019-09979-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kamity R, Ferrara L, Dumpa V, Reynolds J, Islam S, Hanna N. Simultaneous videofluoroscopy and endoscopy for dysphagia evaluation in preterm infants—a pilot study. Front Pediatr. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00537.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaye GM, Zorowitz RD, Baredes S. Role of flexible laryngoscopy in evaluating aspiration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1997;106(8):705–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348949710600817.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wu C-H, Hsiao T-Y, Chen J-C, Chang Y-C, Lee S-Y. Evaluation of swallowing safety with fiberoptic endoscope: comparison with videofluoroscopic technique from the departments of otolaryngology. Laryngoscope. 1997;107(3):396–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Périé S, Laccourreye L, Flahault A, Hazebroucq V, Chaussade S, St Guily JL. Role of videoendoscopy in assessment of pharyngeal function in oropharyngeal dysphagia: comparison with videofluoroscopy and manometry. Laryngoscope. 1998;108(11):1712–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199811000-00022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Madden C, Fenton J, Hughes J, Timon C. Comparison between videofluoroscopy and milk-swallow endoscopy in the assessment of swallowing function. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2000;25(6):504–6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2273.2000.00385.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tabaee A, Johnson PE, Gartner CJ, Kalwerisky K, Desloge RB, Stewart MG. Patient-controlled comparison of flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing with sensory testing (FEESST) and videofluoroscopy. Laryngoscope. 2006;116(5):821–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000214670.40604.45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh V, Berry S, Brockbank MJ, Frost RA, Tyler SE, Owens D. Investigation of aspiration: milk nasendoscopy versus videofluoroscopy. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2009;266(4):543–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0779-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Da Silva AP, Lubianca NJF, Santoro PP. Comparison between videofluoroscopy and endoscopic evaluation of swallowing for the diagnosis of dysphagia in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143(2):204–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.03.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Park WY, Lee TH, Ham NS, et al. Adding endoscopist-directed flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing to the videofluoroscopic swallowing study increased the detection rates of penetration, aspiration, and pharyngeal residue. Gut Liver. 2015;9(5):623–8. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl14147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cimoli M, Oates J, McLaughlin E, Langmore SE. Exploring consistency and variation in fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing practice in Australia. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Martino R, Pron G, Diamant NE. Oropharyngeal dysphagia: surveying practice patterns of the speech-language pathologist. Dysphagia. 2004;19(3):165–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-004-0004-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Swan K, Cordier R, Brown T, Speyer R. Visuoperceptual analysis of the videofluoroscopic study of swallowing: an international Delphi study. Dysphagia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-020-10174-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Swan K, Cordier R, Brown T, Speyer R. Psychometric properties of visuoperceptual measures of videofluoroscopic and fibre-endoscopic evaluations of swallowing: a systematic review. Dysphagia. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-018-9918-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tohara H, Nakane A, Murata S, et al. Inter- and intra-rater reliability in fibroptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(12):884–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02116.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Neubauer PD, Rademaker AW, Leder SB. The yale pharyngeal residue severity rating scale: an anatomically defined and image-based tool. Dysphagia. 2015;30(5):521–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-015-9631-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Starmer H, Arrese L, Langmore SE, et al. Adaptation of dynamic imaging grade of swallowing toxicity (DIGEST) for fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: DIGEST-FEES. In: DRS 2020 Annual Meeting; 2020

  31. Kaneoka AS, Langmore SE, Krisciunas GP, et al. The Boston residue and clearance scale: preliminary reliability and validity testing. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014;65(6):312–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000365006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Field K. The Boston Residue and Clearance Scale (BRACS): criterion validity testing. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/12100 (2013). Accessed 1 Nov 2020.

  33. Farneti D. Pooling score: an endoscopic model for evaluating severity of dysphagia. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2008;28(3):135.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Sabry A, Coyle JL, Abou-Elsaad T. Mansoura fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing residue rating scale (MFRRS): an anatomically based tool—a preliminary study. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1159/000512158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Butler SG, Markley L, Sanders B, Stuart A. Reliability of the penetration aspiration scale with flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015;124(6):480–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003489414566267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Colodny N. Interjudge and intrajudge reliabilities in fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (fees) using the penetration-aspiration scale: a replication study. Dysphagia. 2002;17(4):308–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-002-0073-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nienstedt JC, Müller F, Nießen A, et al. Narrow band imaging enhances the detection rate of penetration and aspiration in FEES. Dysphagia. 2017;32(3):443–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9784-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hutcheson KA, Barrow MP, Barringer DA, et al. Dynamic imaging grade of swallowing toxicity (DIGEST): Scale development and validation. Cancer. 2017;123(1):62–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pisegna JM, Borders JC, Kaneoka A, Coster WJ, Leonard R, Langmore SE. Reliability of untrained and experienced raters on FEES: rating overall residue is a simple task. Dysphagia. 2018;33(5):645–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-018-9883-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pisegna JM, Kaneoka A, Leonard R, Langmore SE. Rethinking residue: determining the perceptual continuum of residue on FEES to enable better measurement. Dysphagia. 2018;33(1):100–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9838-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pisegna JM, Kaneoka A, Coster WJ, Leonard R, Langmore SE. Residue ratings on FEES: trends for clinical application of residue measurement. Dysphagia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-019-10089-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Grant S, Aitchison T, Henderson E, et al. A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest. 1997;116(5):1208–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Berman LB, Keller JL. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(12):1129–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Connor NP, et al. Establishing validity of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2011;20(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Martin-Harris B. Do we have valid and reliable means of quantifying severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia? Moving toward standardization. Perspect Swallow Swallow Disord. 2007;16(1):20–4. https://doi.org/10.1044/sasd16.1.20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rosenbek JC, Robbins J, Roecker EB, Coyle JL, Wood JL. A penetration-aspiration scale. Dysphagia. 1996;11(2):93–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Curtis JA, Seikaly ZN, Dakin AE, Troche MS. Detection of aspiration, penetration, and pharyngeal residue during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES): Comparing the effects of color, coating, and opacity. Dysphagia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-020-10131-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Curtis J, Perry S, Troche MS. Detection of airway invasion during flexible endoscopic evaluations of swallowing: comparing barium, blue dye, and green dye. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2019;28(2):515–20. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Routledge; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Coffey MM, Tolley N, Howard D, Drinnan M, Hickson M. An investigation of the post-laryngectomy swallow using videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). Dysphagia. 2018;33(3):369–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9862-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Steele CM, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Barbon CAE, et al. Reference values for healthy swallowing across the range from thin to extremely thick liquids. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;62(5):1338–63. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-18-0448.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Mancopes R, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Barrett E, et al. Quantitative videofluoroscopic analysis of swallowing physiology and function in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(11):3643–58. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Waito AA, Plowman EK, Barbon CEA, et al. A cross-sectional, quantitative videofluoroscopic analysis of swallowing physiology and function in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(4):948–62. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00051.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. How Long Does the Training Take?. Northern Speech Services. What Is The MBSImPTM Approach? MBSImP | Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile. https://www.northernspeech.com/mbsimp/. Accessed 1 Nov 2020.

  56. Borders JC, Brates D. Use of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale in dysphagia research: a systematic review. Dysphagia. 2020;35(4):583–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-019-10064-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Steele CM, Grace-Martin K. Reflections on clinical and statistical use of the Penetration-Aspiration Scale. Dysphagia. 2017;32:601–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9809-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Vose A, Humbert I. “‘Hidden in plain sight’”: a descriptive review of laryngeal vestibule closure. Dysphagia. 2019;34:281–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-018-9928-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ekberg O. Closure of the laryngeal vestibule during deglutition. Acta Otolaryngol. 1982;93(1–2):123–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Steele CM, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Barrett E, Wolkin TS. The risk of penetration–aspiration related to residue in the pharynx. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2020;29(3):1608–17. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00042.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Molfenter SM, Steele CM. The relationship between residue and aspiration on the subsequent swallow: an application of the normalized residue ratio scale. Dysphagia. 2013;28(4):494–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-013-9459-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lundy DS, Smith C, Colangelo L, et al. Aspiration: cause and implications. Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 1999;120(4):474–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Pisegna JM, Langmore SE, Meyer TK, Pauloski B. Swallowing patterns in the HNC population: timing of penetration-aspiration events and residue. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820933883.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Martin-Harris B, Brodsky MB, Michel Y, et al. MBS measurement tool for swallow impairment-MBSimp: establishing a standard. Dysphagia. 2008;23(4):392–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-008-9185-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Pisegna JM, Langmore SE, Meyer TK, Pauloski B. Swallowing patterns in the HNC population: timing of penetration-aspiration events and residue. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (United States). 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820933883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Steele CM, Peladeau-Pigeon M, Nagy A, Waito AA. Measurement of pharyngeal residue from lateral view videofluoroscopic images. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(5):1404–15. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00314.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. McHorney CA, Bricker DE, Kramer AE, et al. The SWAL-QOL outcomes tool for oropharyngeal dysphagia in adults: I. Conceptual foundation and item development. Dysphagia. 2000;15:115–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004550010012.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Colodny N. Interjudge and intrajudge reliabilities in Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (Fees®) using the Penetration-Aspiration Scale: a replication study. Dysphagia. 2002;17(4):308–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-002-0073-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Langmore SE, Krisciunas GP, Warner H, et al. Abnormalities of aspiration and swallowing function in survivors of acute respiratory failure. Dysphagia. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-020-10199-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Medicare CPT Coding Rules for Speech-Language Pathology Services. https://www.asha.org/practice/reimbursement/medicare/slp_coding_rules/ (2020). Accessed 24 Dec 2020

  71. Hey C, Pluschinski P, Pajunk R, et al. Penetration–aspiration: Is their detection in FEES® reliable without video recording? Dysphagia. 2015;30(4):418–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-015-9616-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Nordin NA, Miles A, Allen J. Measuring competency development in objective evaluation of videofluoroscopic swallowing studies. Dysphagia. 2017;32(3):427–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-016-9776-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Leonard R, Kendall K. Dysphagia assessment and treatment planning: a team approach. 3rd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing, Inc.; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for the Study of Upper Airway Dysfunction, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA

    James A. Curtis, James C. Borders, Sarah E. Perry, Avery E. Dakin, Zeina N. Seikaly & Michelle S. Troche

  2. New Zealand Brain Research Institute, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Sarah E. Perry

  3. Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Sarah E. Perry

  4. School of Psychology, Speech, and Hearing, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Sarah E. Perry

Authors
  1. James A. Curtis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James C. Borders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah E. Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Avery E. Dakin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zeina N. Seikaly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michelle S. Troche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A. Curtis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 4023 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Curtis, J.A., Borders, J.C., Perry, S.E. et al. Visual Analysis of Swallowing Efficiency and Safety (VASES): A Standardized Approach to Rating Pharyngeal Residue, Penetration, and Aspiration During FEES. Dysphagia 37, 417–435 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10293-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-021-10293-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation