Evidence Hub

Non-invasive vagus nerve magnetic stimulation combined with rehabilitation training for vocal cord paralysis and dysphagia following brain injury: a prospective case series study

Shu-Juan Huang, Han-Bo Chen, Caixia Ouyang, Huimin Han, Yong Luo, Weifeng Wen, Lirong Liu, Xiao Lu

Frontiers in Neurology, 2026

12 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Vocal cord paralysis combined with dysphagia following brain injury is a severe complication associated with aspiration pneumonia, asphyxiation, and malnutrition, for which traditional rehabilitation yields limited efficacy. Non-invasive vagus nerve magnetic stimulation (nVNMS) is an emerging neuromodulation technology; however, systematic clinical studies addressing this specific dual-deficit population remain lacking. Methods A prospective case series study was conducted at Guangdong Sanjiu Brain Hospital (June 2024–May 2025), consecutively enrolling 38 inpatients with brain injury–related vocal cord paralysis and dysphagia. All patients received a 21-day combined protocol comprising left mastoid nVNMS (5 Hz, 20 min/session, once daily), low-frequency pulse electrical stimulation for swallowing (20 min/session, once daily), and manual swallowing training (30 min/session, once daily). Outcomes were assessed at baseline and post-treatment using the Standardized Swallowing Assessment (SSA), Food Intake Level Scale (FILS), Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS), and laryngoscopy, with adverse events recorded throughout. Results After treatment, SSA scores decreased from 36.92 ± 4.71 to 32.63 ± 7.10 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.72, large effect), FILS scores increased from 2 (2–2) to 3 (2–3) (p < 0.001, representing transition from total tube-feeding dependence to eligibility for supervised minimal oral intake), and PAS scores decreased from 6 (4–6) to 4 (4–4) (p < 0.001, r…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 12 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free