Dysphagia in cervical spinal cord injury: How international literature trends can guide South African practice patterns - A scoping review.
Kim A Coutts
PMID 34192210WHAT IT FOUND
Dysphagia is common in cervical spinal cord injury, often transient but risky due to respiratory compromise.
Tracheostomy and ventilation are key markers. In South Africa, speech therapists are scarce, so nurses and physiotherapists should screen for swallowing issues early to prevent pneumonia.
Key findings
01The pharyngeal phase of swallowing is most affected, with symptoms including residue in the pyriform sinus or valleculae, poor laryngeal elevation, and impaired upper oesophageal sphincter functioning.
02The presence of a tracheostomy tube (76% of articles) and use of ventilation (69% of articles) were the most commonly cited risk factors for developing dysphagia.
03Dysphagia was described as transient in 47% of the included articles, highlighting the need for early identification and screening during the initial presenting phases.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a scoping review, not a systematic review, so it did not assess the quality of the included studies. The review included only articles published in English in the last 15 years, which may miss relevant older or non-English literature. The findings are descriptive and do not provide evidence on the effectiveness of specific interventions. There is a lack of data on how teams actually collaborate in practice, with only two articles mentioning an interdisciplinary approach.
Declared interests
The author declares no conflicts of interest. The study was not funded by any external organization.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that screening for dysphagia by physiotherapists or nurses has been shown to improve outcomes. The review identifies a gap in guidelines and suggests this approach due to resource constraints, but it does not provide evidence that non-SLP screening is effective or safe without proper training.