Predictive Factors of Postoperative Dysphagia in Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if zero profile devices offer an advantage over traditional plate/cage constructs for dysphagia rates in single level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Dysphagia rates following ACDF have been reported to be as high as 83%, most cases are self-limiting, but chronic dysphagia can continue in up to 35% of patients. Zero profile devices were developed to limit dysphagia, and other plate specific complications, however the literature is currently divided regarding their efficacy. METHODS: Dysphagia was assessed by swallowing quality of life (SWAL-QOL) scores preoperatively, at 6 weeks and 12 weeks. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) including visual analog scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were collected preoperatively, at 6 weeks and at 6 months. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was conducted with SWAL-QOL score as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were included, 41 received a zero profile device, and 23 received plate-graft construct. Both groups were similar regarding patient demographics, except operative time, with the zero-profile group having a shorter procedure time than the cage-plate group (44.88 ± 6.54 vs. 54.43 ± 14.71 min, P = 0.001). At all timepoints dysphagia rates were similar between the groups. Regression analysis confirmed preoperative SWAL-QOL and operative time were the only significant variables. PROMs were also similar between groups at all time points, except VAS neck at 6 months, which was lower in the plate-graft group (1.05 ± 1.48 vs. 3.43 ± 3.21, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Operative time and preoperative SWAL-QOL scores are predictive of dysphagia in single level ACDF. Zero profile devices had a significantly shorter operative time, and may provide a benefit in dysphagia rates in this regard. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
