Clinical spine surgery · 2024
Table-mounted Versus Self-retaining Retraction: An Assessment of Postoperative Dysphagia Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zavras Athan G, Vucicevic Rajko S, Federico Vincent P, Nolte Michael T, Sayari Arash J, Shepard Nicholas A, Colman Matthew W
Аннотация
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.
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.