Application value research of swallowing treatment device combined with swallowing rehabilitation training in the treatment of swallowing disorders after stroke

Table 1 Comparison of efficiency between two groups, n (%)

Group	Number of samples	Significantly effective	Effective	Ineffective	Total effective rat
Control group	43	11 (25.58)	22 (51.16)	10 (23.26)	33 (76.74)
Observation group	43	19 (44.19)	21 (48.84)	3 (6.98)	40 (93.02)
χ2 value					4.441
P value					0.035

Table 2 Comparison of video fluoroscopic swallowing examination before and after intervention between the two groups

Group	Number of samples	Oral delivery time		Swallowing reaction		Pharyngeal delivery time		Laryngeal closure time
		Before intervention	After intervention	Before intervention	After intervention	Before intervention	After intervention	Before intervention	After intervention
Control group	43	1.52 ± 0.53	0.89 ± 0.24a	1.12 ± 0.38	0.80 ± 0.37a	2.51 ± 0.45	1.76 ± 0.41a	0.70 ± 0.19	0.54 ± 0.13a
Observation group	43	1.56 ± 0.52	0.61 ± 0.20a	1.09 ± 0.42	0.56 ± 0.34a	2.47 ± 0.51	1.50 ± 0.34a	0.68 ± 0.21	0.50 ± 0.12a
t value		0.353	5.877	0.347	3.132	0.386	3.201	0.463	1.483
P value		0.725	0.000	0.729	0.002	0.701	0.002	0.644	0.142

^aP < 0.05 vs before intervention.

Table 3 Comparison of surface electromyography of the genioglossus muscle group before and after intervention in both groups

Group	Number of samples	Empty swallowing				Swallowing 5 mL of water
		AEMG (μV)		Duration (s)		AEMG (μV)		Duration (s)
		Before intervention	After intervention	Before intervention	After intervention	Before intervention	After intervention	Before intervention	After intervention
Control group	43	35.89 ± 7.94	28.75 ± 6.12a	3.89 ± 1.21	2.11 ± 0.82a	38.16 ± 8.95	29.11 ± 6.05a	3.64 ± 1.23	2.08 ± 0.74a
Observation group	43	36.01 ± 8.12	26.31 ± 4.96a	3.92 ± 1.17	1.47 ± 0.67a	37.96±9.41	25.21 ± 5.13a	3.71 ± 1.18	1.51 ± 0.45a
t value		0.069	2.031	0.117	3.963	0.101	3.224	0.269	4.316
P value		0.945	0.045	0.907	0.000	0.920	0.002	0.788	0.000

^aP < 0.05 vs before intervention.

AEMG: Average amplitude value.

Table 4 Comparison of Wakita water drinking test scores, functional oral intake scale scores, and Standardized swallowing assessment scores between the two groups

Group	Number of samples	Wakita water drinking test scores		FOIS scores		SSA scores
		Before intervention	After intervention	Before intervention	After intervention	Before intervention	After intervention
Control group	43	4.58 ± 0.47	2.24 ± 1.05a	1.79 ± 0.74	4.46 ± 1.02a	32.52 ± 5.85	25.41 ± 4.11a
Observation group	43	4.62 ± 0.43	1.53 ± 0.81a	1.80 ± 0.78	5.53 ± 1.17a	31.97 ± 6.26	22.23 ± 3.95a
t value		0.412	3.511	0.061	4.520	0.421	3.658
P value		0.682	0.001	0.952	< 0.001	0.675	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05 vs before intervention.

FOIS: Functional oral intake scale; SSA: Standardized swallowing assessment.

Table 5 Comparison of complications between two groups, n (%)

Group	Number of samples	Aspiration pneumonia	Choking coughing	Asphyxia	Cumulative complications
Control group	43	9 (20.93)	2 (4.65)	1 (2.33)	12 (27.91)
Observation group	43	3 (6.98)	1 (2.33)	0 (0.00)	4 (9.30)
χ2 value					4.914
P value					0.027