台式牵引与自锁式牵引:颈椎前路手术后吞咽困难的评估。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计回顾性研究:目的:确定使用台式牵引器工具与自锁式牵引器工具在术后吞咽困难方面是否存在显著差异:颈椎前路手术(ACSS)中椎前结构的牵拉通常与术后吞咽困难或发音障碍有关。常用的牵引器包括非固定式自锁牵引装置或固定式台式牵引臂。然而,关于不同类型牵引器造成的吞咽困难差异的文献却很少:对接受 ACSS 并坚持至少 6 个月随访的患者进行回顾性评估。比较了台式牵引器组和自锁式牵引器组在术前和最终术后时间点的患者报告结果(PROs),包括针对吞咽困难的 SWAL-QOL 调查。采用之前定义的最小临床重要性差异(MCID)值对分类吞咽困难进行评估:总体而言,分别有 117 名和 75 名患者接受了自锁式牵引或台式牵引。自我牵引组的平均随访时间(14.8±15.0 个月)明显长于台式牵引组(9.4±7.8 个月,P=0.005)。在吞咽功能(P=0.918)或手术时间(P=0.436)方面未发现差异,但台式牵引显著缩短了3级手术时间(P=0.005)。多变量分析显示,随着手术级别的增加(P=0.072)和牵引时间的增加(P=0.054),吞咽功能有变差的趋势,但所使用的牵引器并不能预测吞咽功能(P=0.759)。然而,台式牵引器术后吞咽困难的分类比率较低(13.3% 对 27.4%,P=0.033):使用自锁式牵引器和台式牵引器接受 ACSS 的患者在长期吞咽功能障碍方面没有明显差异,但台式牵引器的吞咽困难发生率较低。此外,在时间相近的情况下,台式牵引器组每例手术的层面数更多,这表明效率有所提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Spine Surgery
Clinical Spine Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
236
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.
×
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