Athan G Zavras, Rajko S Vucicevic, Vincent P Federico, Michael T Nolte, Arash J Sayari, Nicholas A Shepard, Matthew W Colman
{"title":"台式牵引与自锁式牵引:颈椎前路手术后吞咽困难的评估。","authors":"Athan G Zavras, Rajko S Vucicevic, Vincent P Federico, Michael T Nolte, Arash J Sayari, Nicholas A Shepard, Matthew W Colman","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether there are significant differences in postoperative dysphagia when using table-mounted versus self-retaining retractor tools.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Retraction of prevertebral structures during anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) is commonly associated with postoperative dysphagia or dysphonia. Retractors commonly used include nonfixed self-retaining retraction devices or fixed table-mounted retractor arms. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding differences in dysphagia between retractor types.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent ACSS and adhered to a minimum of 6-month follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared between table-mounted and self-retaining retractor groups at the preoperative and final postoperative time points, including the SWAL-QOL survey for dysphagia. Categorical dysphagia was assessed using previously defined values for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 117 and 75 patients received self-retaining or table-mounted retraction. Average follow-up was significantly longer in the self-retaining cohort (14.8±15.0 mo) than in the table-mounted group (9.4±7.8, P=0.005). No differences were detected in swallowing function (P=0.918) or operative time (P=0.436), although 3-level procedures were significantly shortened with table-mounted retraction (P=0.005). Multivariate analysis trended toward worse swallow function with increased operative levels (P=0.072) and increased retraction time (P=0.054), although the retractor used did not predict swallowing function (P=0.759). However, categorical rates of postoperative dysphagia were lower with table-mounted retraction (13.3% vs. 27.4%, P=0.033).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference observed in long-term swallowing dysfunction between patients who underwent ACSS with self-retaining and table-mounted retractors, although the rate of dysphagia was lower with table-mounted retraction. In addition, the greater number of operated levels per case in the table-mounted group at a similar time suggests improved efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Table-mounted Versus Self-retaining Retraction: An Assessment of Postoperative Dysphagia Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Athan G Zavras, Rajko S Vucicevic, Vincent P Federico, Michael T Nolte, Arash J Sayari, Nicholas A Shepard, Matthew W Colman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether there are significant differences in postoperative dysphagia when using table-mounted versus self-retaining retractor tools.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Retraction of prevertebral structures during anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) is commonly associated with postoperative dysphagia or dysphonia. Retractors commonly used include nonfixed self-retaining retraction devices or fixed table-mounted retractor arms. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding differences in dysphagia between retractor types.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent ACSS and adhered to a minimum of 6-month follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared between table-mounted and self-retaining retractor groups at the preoperative and final postoperative time points, including the SWAL-QOL survey for dysphagia. Categorical dysphagia was assessed using previously defined values for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 117 and 75 patients received self-retaining or table-mounted retraction. Average follow-up was significantly longer in the self-retaining cohort (14.8±15.0 mo) than in the table-mounted group (9.4±7.8, P=0.005). No differences were detected in swallowing function (P=0.918) or operative time (P=0.436), although 3-level procedures were significantly shortened with table-mounted retraction (P=0.005). Multivariate analysis trended toward worse swallow function with increased operative levels (P=0.072) and increased retraction time (P=0.054), although the retractor used did not predict swallowing function (P=0.759). However, categorical rates of postoperative dysphagia were lower with table-mounted retraction (13.3% vs. 27.4%, P=0.033).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference observed in long-term swallowing dysfunction between patients who underwent ACSS with self-retaining and table-mounted retractors, although the rate of dysphagia was lower with table-mounted retraction. In addition, the greater number of operated levels per case in the table-mounted group at a similar time suggests improved efficiency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Spine Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001689\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001689","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Table-mounted Versus Self-retaining Retraction: An Assessment of Postoperative Dysphagia Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.
Study design: Retrospective study.
Objective: To determine whether there are significant differences in postoperative dysphagia when using table-mounted versus self-retaining retractor tools.
Summary of background data: Retraction of prevertebral structures during anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) is commonly associated with postoperative dysphagia or dysphonia. Retractors commonly used include nonfixed self-retaining retraction devices or fixed table-mounted retractor arms. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding differences in dysphagia between retractor types.
Methods: Patients who underwent ACSS and adhered to a minimum of 6-month follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared between table-mounted and self-retaining retractor groups at the preoperative and final postoperative time points, including the SWAL-QOL survey for dysphagia. Categorical dysphagia was assessed using previously defined values for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).
Results: Overall, 117 and 75 patients received self-retaining or table-mounted retraction. Average follow-up was significantly longer in the self-retaining cohort (14.8±15.0 mo) than in the table-mounted group (9.4±7.8, P=0.005). No differences were detected in swallowing function (P=0.918) or operative time (P=0.436), although 3-level procedures were significantly shortened with table-mounted retraction (P=0.005). Multivariate analysis trended toward worse swallow function with increased operative levels (P=0.072) and increased retraction time (P=0.054), although the retractor used did not predict swallowing function (P=0.759). However, categorical rates of postoperative dysphagia were lower with table-mounted retraction (13.3% vs. 27.4%, P=0.033).
Conclusions: There was no significant difference observed in long-term swallowing dysfunction between patients who underwent ACSS with self-retaining and table-mounted retractors, although the rate of dysphagia was lower with table-mounted retraction. In addition, the greater number of operated levels per case in the table-mounted group at a similar time suggests improved efficiency.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.