ScholarWorks Community:https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/3892026-07-03T22:01:01Z2026-07-03T22:01:01ZLesion-Specific Clinical Implications of Oral Hesitation After Stroke: A Comparative Study of Frontal Versus Parietal Lobe LesionsYun, Yeo JoonJang, Seong HoPark, Jae HyeonChoi, Seung YoonLee, Ji WooHan, Seung Hoonhttps://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/2132942026-06-16T05:30:35Z2026-05-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Lesion-Specific Clinical Implications of Oral Hesitation After Stroke: A Comparative Study of Frontal Versus Parietal Lobe Lesions
Authors: Yun, Yeo Joon; Jang, Seong Ho; Park, Jae Hyeon; Choi, Seung Yoon; Lee, Ji Woo; Han, Seung Hoon
Abstract: Background and Objectives: Whether post-stroke oral hesitation carries different clinical implications by lesion location is unclear. We compared oral hesitation and its relationship with chewing, cognition, and aspiration risk between frontal and parietal lobe stroke. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 242 patients (35 frontal, 207 parietal) from 946 consecutive stroke admissions (2016–2020) with isolated lesions and videofluoroscopic swallowing study within one month. Oral hesitation, chewing, Clinical Dysphagia Scale (CDS), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were recorded. Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores were categorized as Normal (1), Penetration (2–5), or Aspiration (6–8). Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, stroke type, and lesion side was performed. Firth’s penalized estimation was used for models with quasi-separation. Results: Groups were demographically comparable in age (68.1 ± 15.0 vs. 71.7 ± 12.2 years; p = 0.206) and female sex (48.6% vs. 42.0%; p = 0.590). Oral hesitation was significantly more prevalent in the frontal group (liquid: 80.0% vs. 23.2%, p < 0.001; semisolid: 68.6% vs. 26.6%, p < 0.001). Frontal patients scored worse on six of seven CDS subcomponents (p < 0.01), yet chewing was uncorrelated with oral hesitation or residue (p > 0.3), unchanged after MMSE adjustment. In parietal patients, chewing correlated with all outcomes (ρ = 0.19–0.30, p < 0.01). In parietal stroke, oral hesitation was linked with liquid aspiration (64.3% vs. 35.7%; OR = 3.25, p = 0.001) and semisolid airway invasion (OR = 2.70, p = 0.005); these associations remained significant after multivariable adjustment and FDR correction. No such association was detected in the frontal group, although this finding is limited by the smaller sample size. Conclusions: Oral hesitation may carry different clinical implications by lesion site. In parietal stroke, it was associated with chewing impairment and higher aspiration risk, suggesting a possible sensorimotor contribution. Frontal group findings were underpowered and should be considered exploratory. Lesion-specific interpretation warrants larger-cohort confirmation.2026-05-01T00:00:00Z주관절과 전완부에서 초음파로 찾을 수 있는 구조물박재현https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/2170772026-07-02T16:32:31Z2026-04-04T00:00:00ZTitle: 주관절과 전완부에서 초음파로 찾을 수 있는 구조물
Authors: 박재현2026-04-04T00:00:00ZDigital Health Technology for Measurements and Management in People with Physical Disabilities박재현https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/2170762026-07-02T16:32:29Z2026-03-29T00:00:00ZTitle: Digital Health Technology for Measurements and Management in People with Physical Disabilities
Authors: 박재현2026-03-29T00:00:00Z디지털 평가방법 및 치료제의 개발현황박재현https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/2170752026-07-02T16:32:27Z2026-03-21T00:00:00ZTitle: 디지털 평가방법 및 치료제의 개발현황
Authors: 박재현2026-03-21T00:00:00Z