A comparison of dysphagia rates between long-segment anterior versus posterior cervical fusion.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine Pub Date : 2024-08-02 Print Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.3171/2024.4.SPINE24108
Michael J Visconti, Vincent J Alentado, Ian M McFatridge, Antonio Z Neher, Eric A Potts
{"title":"A comparison of dysphagia rates between long-segment anterior versus posterior cervical fusion.","authors":"Michael J Visconti, Vincent J Alentado, Ian M McFatridge, Antonio Z Neher, Eric A Potts","doi":"10.3171/2024.4.SPINE24108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study was to compare rates of dysphagia and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following long-segment (≥ 3 levels) anterior cervical spinal fusion (ACF) and posterior cervical spinal fusion (PCF) at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. PROs were also compared for patients with dysphagia versus those without dysphagia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospectively collected quality improvement database was used to identify patients who had a long-segment cervical spinal fusion. Cohorts were divided into ACF and PCF groups. Eating Assessment Tool-10 scores and PROs were obtained for all patients preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively to compare. Multivariate analysis was also performed to evaluate risk factors for dysphagia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 132 patients met the inclusion criteria, 77 of whom had undergone ACF and 55 of whom had undergone PCF. Dysphagia rates between ACF and PCF cohorts were similar at baseline (13.0% vs 18.2%, p = 0.4). New-onset dysphagia rates were also comparable at 3-month follow-up (39.7% vs 23.1%, p = 0.08) and 12-month follow-up (32.6% vs 32.4%, p > 0.99). Patients who underwent PCF had worse Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores at 3 months than did patients with ACF (13.67 ± 9.49 vs 10.55 ± 6.24, respectively; p = 0.03). There were significantly higher NDI scores for patients with dysphagia at 3 months in both the ACF and PCF groups and at 12 months for those in the PCF group. Analogously, EuroQol-5 Dimensions scores were worse for patients with dysphagia; however, this was only significant for patients in the ACF group at 3 months. There were no significant risk factors for the development of dysphagia found on multivariate analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Similar rates and severity of dysphagia were seen following ACF and PCF at 3- and 12-month follow-up. This suggests that long-term dysphagia following cervical fusion surgery may be due to structural changes from the fusion rather than the surgical approach. However, the ACF cohort was significantly younger, and this may have partially accounted for the findings. PROs were also compared for patients with and without dysphagia, demonstrating worsened outcomes in some domains for patients who presented with dysphagia at 3- and 12-month follow-up. This suggests that dysphagia may be associated with a decreased quality of life after cervical fusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":16562,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","volume":" ","pages":"628-638"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.4.SPINE24108","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to compare rates of dysphagia and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following long-segment (≥ 3 levels) anterior cervical spinal fusion (ACF) and posterior cervical spinal fusion (PCF) at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. PROs were also compared for patients with dysphagia versus those without dysphagia.

Methods: A prospectively collected quality improvement database was used to identify patients who had a long-segment cervical spinal fusion. Cohorts were divided into ACF and PCF groups. Eating Assessment Tool-10 scores and PROs were obtained for all patients preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively to compare. Multivariate analysis was also performed to evaluate risk factors for dysphagia.

Results: A total of 132 patients met the inclusion criteria, 77 of whom had undergone ACF and 55 of whom had undergone PCF. Dysphagia rates between ACF and PCF cohorts were similar at baseline (13.0% vs 18.2%, p = 0.4). New-onset dysphagia rates were also comparable at 3-month follow-up (39.7% vs 23.1%, p = 0.08) and 12-month follow-up (32.6% vs 32.4%, p > 0.99). Patients who underwent PCF had worse Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores at 3 months than did patients with ACF (13.67 ± 9.49 vs 10.55 ± 6.24, respectively; p = 0.03). There were significantly higher NDI scores for patients with dysphagia at 3 months in both the ACF and PCF groups and at 12 months for those in the PCF group. Analogously, EuroQol-5 Dimensions scores were worse for patients with dysphagia; however, this was only significant for patients in the ACF group at 3 months. There were no significant risk factors for the development of dysphagia found on multivariate analysis.

Conclusions: Similar rates and severity of dysphagia were seen following ACF and PCF at 3- and 12-month follow-up. This suggests that long-term dysphagia following cervical fusion surgery may be due to structural changes from the fusion rather than the surgical approach. However, the ACF cohort was significantly younger, and this may have partially accounted for the findings. PROs were also compared for patients with and without dysphagia, demonstrating worsened outcomes in some domains for patients who presented with dysphagia at 3- and 12-month follow-up. This suggests that dysphagia may be associated with a decreased quality of life after cervical fusion.

长节段前路与后路颈椎融合术吞咽困难发生率的比较。
研究目的本研究的目的是比较长节段(≥ 3 个水平)颈椎前路融合术(ACF)和颈椎后路融合术(PCF)术后 3 个月和 12 个月的吞咽困难发生率和患者报告结果(PROs)。此外,还比较了有吞咽困难和无吞咽困难患者的PROs:采用前瞻性收集的质量改进数据库来识别接受长节段颈椎融合术的患者。组群分为 ACF 组和 PCF 组。对所有患者术前、术后3个月和12个月的饮食评估工具-10评分和PRO进行比较。此外,还进行了多变量分析,以评估吞咽困难的风险因素:共有 132 名患者符合纳入标准,其中 77 人接受了 ACF,55 人接受了 PCF。ACF 和 PCF 组群的基线吞咽困难发生率相似(13.0% vs 18.2%,p = 0.4)。新发吞咽困难率在 3 个月随访(39.7% vs 23.1%,p = 0.08)和 12 个月随访(32.6% vs 32.4%,p > 0.99)时也相当。与 ACF 患者相比,接受 PCF 治疗的患者 3 个月后的颈部残疾指数(NDI)评分较低(分别为 13.67 ± 9.49 vs 10.55 ± 6.24;P = 0.03)。在 3 个月时,ACF 组和 PCF 组吞咽困难患者的 NDI 分数均明显高于 PCF 组患者,而在 12 个月时,PCF 组患者的 NDI 分数也明显高于 ACF 组患者。同样,有吞咽困难的患者的 EuroQol-5 Dimensions 得分也较低;不过,只有 ACF 组患者在 3 个月时的得分才有显著性。在多变量分析中没有发现出现吞咽困难的重要风险因素:在 3 个月和 12 个月的随访中,ACF 和 PCF 患者出现吞咽困难的比例和严重程度相似。这表明,颈椎融合术后的长期吞咽困难可能是由于融合术的结构变化而非手术方法造成的。不过,ACF组群的患者明显更年轻,这可能是研究结果的部分原因。我们还比较了有吞咽困难和没有吞咽困难的患者的PROs,结果显示,在3个月和12个月的随访中,出现吞咽困难的患者在某些领域的治疗效果有所下降。这表明,吞咽困难可能与颈椎融合术后生活质量下降有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
Journal of neurosurgery. Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Primarily publish original works in neurosurgery but also include studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信