It is difficult to make dysphagia assessments in actual meal settings. Therefore, instrument-based evaluations are necessary, and videofluoroscopic examinations (VF) and video-endoscopic examinations (VE) of swallowing are typically performed for this purpose. Much information can be obtained by understanding the respective advantages and disadvantages of VF and VE and combining them for evaluations, making them useful for both assessment and treatment. Essentially, VF is contrast radiography using a fluoroscope. It uses test food containing a contrast agent that allows the flow of the food from the mouth to the pharynx and esophagus accompanying swallowing movements to be observed in real time to determine whether there is aspiration or food remaining in the pharynx. The images are taken mainly from the frontal and lateral views under fluoroscopy. VE is a test that involves direct fiberscopic observation of things such as glottal closure, saliva and secretions, and food boluses or other substances remaining in the pharynx. Assessment includes evaluation of vocal cord paralysis, redness and swelling of the arytenoid region, and whether there is saliva aspiration into the larynx. Next, the swallowing function is assessed using actual food. The body posture used in the test is the individual's regular posture when eating and a safe, proper posture with a low risk of aspiration. Today, VF and VE are essential tools for assessing and treating dysphagia. It is hoped that many practitioners will acquire the skills to administer and make use of these tests in the rehabilitation of patients with eating and swallowing disorders.

Objective：An actual-condition survey was conducted to verify the validity of reference values of higher brain function necessary for patients with brain injury to resume automobile driving.　Subjects：Of the 74 patients admitted to the Tokyo Metropolitan Rehabilitation Hospital between November 1, 2008 and November 30, 2012, who underwent evaluation using the hospital's automobile driving resumption system at the time of discharge, 71 patients with brain injury who were judged capable of resuming driving were included in this study. Methods：Questionnaires were sent at least 1 year after discharge, to determine whether the subjects had actually resumed automobile driving. Subjects were classified by admission date into two groups：1）A provisional reference group that included patients admitted between November 2008 and November 2011 who had resumed driving；and 2) verification group that included patients who had been admitted between December 2011 and November 2012 and had resumed driving. The relationship between results on the higher brain function test for the verification group and provisional reference values was investigated. Results：The provisional reference value group included 29 patients, and the verification group included 13 patients. In the verification group, the results of 9 patients with brain injury on the higher brain function test were within provisional reference values. Conclusion：The results of the paper-based test are a reliable predictor of whether a patient is capable of resuming driving, but do not represent an absolute standard. Therefore, the safety of resuming driving should be investigated on a case-by-case basis.

Objective : We conducted a fact-finding survey for the consecutive past 3 years to establish whether inpatients with brain injury who had wished to resume driving after discharge from our hospital had in fact resumed driving after discharge. The survey included both driving status and information about collisions. Methods : Patients who had been evaluated for resumption of driving and were discharged more than 1 year ago were sent a fact-finding survey questionnaire aimed at establishing whether they were currently driving. The patients who had resumed driving (resumers) were compared with those who had not resumed driving (non-resumers). From the questionnaire results we investigated driving status and whether collisions had occurred. Results : We obtained effective responses from 40 of the 54 people (48 males, 6 females) who were sent the questionnaire ; the collection rate was 74.1%. Of these, twenty-nine people had resumed driving, all were male. There were no significant differences between the resumers and non-resumers in higher brain function tests. In regard to driving ability, hemiparesis impairments were significantly milder in the resumers than in the non-resumers. Two respondents had hit posts or walls within the year. All these collisions occurred when parking. One respondent had a collision while driving along a road. Conclusion : We hope to provide patients with useful and appropriate information on resuming driving so that we can support them in a safe return to the driving environment.

Sleep apnea syndrome (SAS) is a known risk factor for cerebral stroke and other cardiovascular diseases；approximately 50% of patients with cerebral stroke subsequently develop sleep-related breathing disorders. Obstructive SAS (OSAS) is the most common form of SAS. Concomitant SAS is considered a poor prognostic factor in patients who undergo cerebral stroke rehabilitation；however, many patients remain undiagnosed. We report the case of a 69-year-old woman who was admitted to the convalescent rehabilitation ward with a diagnosis of cerebral hemorrhage. Results of the STOP-Bang questionnaire administered upon admission revealed that the patient was at a high risk for SAS, and she was subsequently diagnosed with OSAS based on simple respiratory function tests. Nighttime continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy led to improvement in the patient's daytime awakening and nocturnal frequency, and her rehabilitation treatment became easier. In addition to obstruction of the upper airway, nocturnal rostral fluid shift is implicated in the pathophysiology of OSAS-induced nocturia (polyuria), and the combination of exercise and CPAP therapy may serve as a useful treatment strategy in such cases.

Introduction：The relationship between the results of a driving simulator test and a paper-based evaluation of higher brain function were examined.Subjects：The subjects of this study were 203 patients with brain injury who received support to resume driving during hospitalization or outpatient treatment at our hospital between April 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018.Methods：The sex, age, and results of various higher brain function tests of the patients were investigated using medical records and the outcomes of the driving resumption support. The performance on a driving simulator test was compared between patients judged able to and those judged unable to resume driving.Results：In the group of 165 patients who passed the paper-based evaluation of higher brain function, 34 were judged unable to resume driving based on a driving simulator test. In the group that did not pass the paper-based evaluation of higher brain function, 4 patients were also judged unable to resume driving based on a driving simulator test. The results of the higher brain function evaluation were significantly better in the group permitted to resume driving compared with the group not permitted to resume driving in all items except for the Visual Reproduction subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised.Conclusions：Evaluations of actual automobile driving using driving simulators or other means are important in assessing driving resumption. Driving requires the use of various higher brain functions and the results of this study suggest that a higher level of ability is required for safe driving.

Introduction：In this study, we conducted a retrospective investigation to determine when patients with brain damage could be tested and permitted to resume driving and also assessed reasons for disallowance. Subjects：A total of 279 patients with brain damage were included in the study. These patients underwent an assessment for driving resumption between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2020, either as in-patient in our hospital or attending as an outpatient. Method：Medical records were examined to ascertain details regarding timing of driving resumption, reason for disallowance, and number of outpatient training sessions. Results：Among the study participants, 233 patients were permitted to resume driving and 46 were not. Among permitted patients, 65 were hospitalized in our hospital at that time, 83 had been discharged from our hospital and were attending as outpatients, and 85 had been referred to our outpatient clinic from other hospitals. Among patients not permitted to drive, 6 were hospitalized in our hospital at the time, 17 had been discharged from our hospital and were attending as outpatients, and 23 had been referred from other hospitals. Conclusions：Evidence supporting driving resumption in patients who were brain damaged could not be determined while being hospitalized in convalescent rehabilitation wards. Hence, continued provision of outpatient rehabilitation therapy is important.