Effects of Targeted Orofacial Rehabilitation in Patients after Stroke with Speech Disorders
Authors:
P. Konečný 1,2; R. Vysoký 3; M. Elfmark 1,4; K. Urbánek 2
Authors‘ workplace:
Ústav fyzioterapie, FZV UP v Olomouci
1; Neurologická klinika LF UP a FN Olomouc
2; Rehabilitační oddělení, FN Brno
3; Katedra biomechaniky a technické kybernetiky, FTK UP v Olomouci
4
Published in:
Cesk Slov Neurol N 2017; 80/113(3): 316-322
Category:
Original Paper
doi:
https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2017316
Overview
Orofacial rehabilitation (OFR) plays an important role during rehabilitation of stroke patients. It is significantly involved in the overall treatment of post-stroke restoration of affected functions from early subacute stage of stroke. OFR involves interdisciplinary collaboration of speech therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and physicians involved in the treatment of post-stroke patients with orofacial disorders such as mimics, communication or food intake. These disorders are to a varying extent expressed in post-stroke patients and significantly affect the quality of their lives. Patients with speech disorders represent a large proportion of clients requiring rehabilitation treatment after stroke. In these patients, we find different forms and different degrees of facial disorders and varying degrees of dysarthric disorder. OFR plays an irreplaceable role in reeducation of speech functions of a patient, especially in correcting motor speech disorders. Our evaluation of the effects of the OFR has been designed as a case-control study and consists of 99 patients with a speech disorder (aphasia and dysarthria) in a setting of stroke. The aim of the research was to evaluate speech functions in these patients after completing a four-week institutional rehabilitation. In the study (experimental) group, the OFR performed by a physiotherapist was added to a conventional therapy (rehabilitation and speech therapy). Our research also included objective device evaluation of voice recordings using spectral voice analysis.
Klíčová slova:
stroke – oropharyngeal rehabilitation – aphasia – dysarthria – spectral analysis of speech
The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.
The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.
Chinese summary - 摘要
目标面部康复对患有脑卒中障碍患者的影响
口腔康复（OFR）在卒中患者康复过程中起着重要作用，从脑卒中早期亚急性卒中恢复受影响功能的整体治疗中也具有重要的意义。 OFR涉及语言治疗师，物理治疗师，职业治疗师和参与治疗卒中后患者口腔疾病如模拟，通讯或食物摄入的医师的跨学科合作。这些疾病在中风后患者中表达的程度不同，并且显著影响了他们的生活质量。患有言语障碍的患者在卒中后需要康复治疗的客户中占很大比例。在这些患者中，我们发现不同形式和不同程度的面部障碍和不同程度的障碍。 OFR在病人的语言功能再教育中起着不可替代的作用，特别是纠正运动语言障碍。我们对OFR的影响的评估已经被设计为一个病例对照研究，由99名患有卒中中风的语言障碍（失语和发音障碍）的患者组成。研究的目的是在完成四周制度康复后评估这些患者的言语功能。在研究（实验）组中，由物理治疗师进行的OFR被添加到常规治疗（康复和言语治疗）中。我们的研究还包括使用光谱语音分析的语音录音的客观设备评估。
关键词：
中风 - 口咽康复 - 失语症 - 发音障碍 - 语音频谱分析
Sources
1. Adamičová H. Rehabilitace po cévní mozkové příhodě. In: Kolektiv autorů. Neurologie 2003. Praha: Triton 2003:20– 36.
2. Vaňásková E. Testování v rehabilitační praxi – cévní mozkové příhody. Brno: Vydavatelství NCO NZO 2004.
3. Konečný P, Havlíčková J, Elfmark M, et al. Efekty rehabilitace pacientů s poruchou temporomandibulárního kloubu. Rehabil Fyz Lek 2007;14(3):95– 100.
4. Vysoký R, Konečný P. Výsledky cílené orofaciální rehabilitace u neurologických pacientů s poruchou artikulace a fonace. Rehabil Fyz Lek 2007;14(1):18– 23.
5. Konečný P, Kalčíková M, Elfmark M, et al. Paréza n. facialis u pacientů po CMP a její vliv na orofaciální funkce. Rehabil Fyz Lek 2009;16(2):69– 74.
6. Konečný P, Kalčíková M, Elfmark M, et al. Paréza lícního nervu a její vliv na impairment, disabilitu a handicap u pacientů po cévní mozkové příhodě. Rehabilitacia 2010;47(2):118– 22.
7. Konečný P, Vysoký R. Rehabilitace orofaciální oblasti při paréze lícního nervu. Rehabil Fyz Lek 2010;17(3):123– 6.
8. Konecny P, Elfmark M, Urbanek K. Facial paresis after stroke and its impact on patients’ facial movement and mental status. J Rehabil Med 2011;43(1):73– 5. doi: 10.2340/ 16501977-0645.
9. Konecny P, Elfmark M, Horak S, et al. Central facial paresis and its impal on mimicry, psyche and qaulity of life in patiens after stroke. Biomed Pap MedFac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2014;158(1): 133– 7. doi: 10.5507/ bp.2013.014.
10. Konečný P, Elfmark M, Horák S, et al. Dysfagie po cévní mozkové příhodě. Rehabil Fyz Lek 2015;22(4):181– 4.
11. Hanáková D, Jureček B, Konečný P. Zhodnocení efektu propriosenzitivního reedukačního cvičení při léčbě temporomandibulárních poruch. Česká stomatologie 2004;104/ 52(5):193– 200.
12. Konečný P. Temporomandibulární kloub. Rehabilitace. Praha: Triton 2010:128– 54.
13. Ambler Z. Neurologie. Praha: Karolinum 2004.
14. Kalita Z a kol. Akutní cévní mozkové příhody. Praha: Maxdorf 2006.
15. Cséfalvay Z. Súčasný pohľad na diagnostiku a terapiu afázie. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2007;70/ 103(2):118– 28.
16. Neurbaer K, et al. Neurogenní poruchy komunikace u dospělých. Praha: Portál 2007.
17. Seikel JA, et al. Anatomy and physiology for speech, language and hearing. Delmar: Singular Publishing 2000.
18. Véle F. Kineziologie pro klinickou praxi. Praha: Grada Publishing 1997.
19. Hrazdíra I. Biofyzika. Praha: Avicenum 1990.
20. Novák A. Foniatrie a pedaudiologie III. Praha: vlastním nákladem autora 1997.
21. Castillo Morales R. Die Orofaziale Regulationstherapie. München: Pflaum 1998.
22. Kittel A. Myofunkční terapie. Praha: Grada Publishing 1999.
23. Gangale DC. Rehabilitace orofaciální oblasti. Praha: Grada Publishing 2004.
24. Hedánek J, Roubíčková J. Dysartrický profil – test 3F. Praha: DeskTop Publishing FF Univerzita Karlova 1997.
25. Kulišťák P, Benešová E. Afaziologické vyšetření „Western Aphasia Batery“. Česká experimentální verze. Klin Logoped Praxi 1996;3(1):4– 9.
26. Fant G. Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. Monton: The Hauge 1970.
27. Titze I. Principles of voice production. Toronto: Prentice-Hall 1996.
28. Svensson BH, Christiansen LS, Jepsen E. Treatment of central facial nerve paresis with elektromyography biofeedback and taping cheek. A controled clinical trial. Ugeskr Langer 1992;154(50):3593– 6.
29. Hägg M, Larsson B. Effects of motor and sensory stimulation in stroke patiens with long-lasting dysphagia. Dysphagia 2004;19(4):219– 30.
30. Ray J. Orofacial myofunctional therapy in dysarthria: a study on speech intelligility. Int J Orofacial Myology 2002;28:39– 48.
31. Gallagher TM. Treatment research in speech, language and swallowing: lesson from child language disorders. Folia Phoniatr Logop 1998;50(3):165– 82.
32. Hustad KC, Jones T, Dailey S. Implementing speech supplementation strategies: effects on intelligibility and speech rate of individuals with chronic serve dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003;46(2):462– 74.
33. McKenzie C, Lowit A. Behavioural intervention effects in dysarthria following stroke: communication effectiveness, intelligibility and dysarthria impact. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2007; 42(2):131– 53.
34. Gentil M. Speech rehabilitation in dysarthria. Folia Phoniatr (Basel) 1993;45(1):31– 5.
35. Robertson S. The efficacy of oro-facial and articulation exercises in dysarthria following stroke. Int J Lang Commun Disodr 2001;36:292– 7.
Labels
Paediatric neurology Neurosurgery NeurologyArticle was published in
Czech and Slovak Neurology and Neurosurgery
2017 Issue 3
Most read in this issue
- Myotonic Dystrophy – Unity in Diversity
- Fetal Radiation Risk Due to X-ray Procedures Performed on Pregnant Women
- Febrile Seizures – Sometimes Less is More
- Low Back Pain – Evidence-based Medicine and Current Clinical Practice. Is there Any Reason to Change Anything?