Comparability of Power Dysphagia in Standalone versus Typical Plate and Cage Fusion.
World Neurosurg. 2018 Jan;109:e382-e388
Authors: Fisahn C, Schmidt C, Rustagi T, Moisi M, Iwanaga J, Norvell DC, Tubbs RS, Schildhauer TA, Chapman JR
INTRODUCTION: Standalone cages have gained recognition due to their ease of implantation, lowered working time, and decrease profile in contrast with conventional plate and cage techniques. The goal of this examine was to check the danger of persistent dysphagia between those that undergwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with conventional plating strategies and those that underwent standalone procedures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2014 and 2015, we recognized 377 consecutive sufferers who met the examine standards (standalone, n = 211; plate-cage, n = 166). Affected person-specific traits and surgical traits had been collected preoperatively. As well as, the Dysphagia Incapacity Index (DDI) was collected 2 years postoperatively by phone interview.
RESULTS: Among the many sufferers who underwent a standalone process, 84% (n = 177) had been out there for his or her 2-year follow-up go to compared with 75% (n = 124) for plate-cage procedures. There was no statistically vital distinction in postoperative DDI scores between the two teams, controlling for prior surgical procedure and smoking. Nevertheless, the strongest danger components for increased DDI scores had been prior cervical surgical procedure (imply 6.zero factors increased) and smoking (imply 6.2 factors increased). Twenty-seven sufferers (eight.9%) skilled persistent dysphagia. The chance was increased within the plate-cage group (n = 15, 12.1%) than within the standalone group (n = 12, 6.7%), however this distinction didn’t attain statistical significance.
CONCLUSION: Regardless of comparable imply DDI scores, sufferers who endure anterior cervical discectomy with a plate-cage could also be at a better danger for persistent dysphagia than are these with a standalone method, however additional research with bigger pattern sizes are essential to determine this relationship with larger confidence.
PMID: 28987856 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]