The Relationship between Ischemic Stroke Patients with and without Retroflex Tongue: A Retrospective Study

4Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. Patients suffering from stroke exhibit different levels of capability in retroflex tongues, in our clinical observation. This study aims to derive the association of tongue retroflexibility with the degree of severity for stroke patients. Methods. All ischemic stroke patients were collected from August 2010 to July 2013 in the Stroke Center, Changhua Christian Hospital, Taiwan. All participants underwent medical history collection and clinical examination, including tongue images captured by ATDS. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the differences of ischemic stroke patients with and without retroflex tongue. Result. Among the total of 308 cases collected, 123 patients cannot retroflex their tongues, that is, the non-RT group. The length of stay in the non-RT group, 32.0 ± 21.5, was longer than those of the RT counterparts, 25.9 ± 14.4 (p value: 0.007). The NIHSS on admission, 14.1 ± 7.8 versus 8.9 ± 5.2, was higher and the Barthel Index upon admission, 18.6 ± 20.7 and 35.0 ± 24.2, was lower for the non-RT patients than that of the RT counterparts. Also, the non-RT patients account for 60.2% and 75.6% for Barthel Index ≤ 17 and NIHSS ≥ 9, respectively. Conclusion. The stroke patients in non-RT group showed significantly poor prognosis and were more serious in the degree of severity and level of autonomy than RT group, indicating that the ability to maneuver tongue retroflex can serve as a simple, reliable, and noninvasive means for the prognosis of ischemic stroke patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Huang, Y. S., Sun, M. C., Hsu, P. C., Chen, Y. L., Chiang, J. Y., & Lo, L. C. (2017). The Relationship between Ischemic Stroke Patients with and without Retroflex Tongue: A Retrospective Study. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3195749

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free