uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of dysphagia between cervical artificial disc replacement and fusion: data from a randomized controlled study with two years of follow-up
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Orthopaedics.
2013 (English)In: Spine, ISSN 0362-2436, E-ISSN 1528-1159, Vol. 38, no 24, E1507-E1510 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE

To determine and explain any differences in self-reported dysphagia between patients treated with artificial disc replacement and anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery has in previous studies been evaluated regarding different influencing factors. Surgical technique, number of treated levels, and type of implant has been shown to be of possible importance.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-six patients from a randomized controlled trial between artificial disc replacement and ACDF in 1 or 2 surgical levels were evaluated regarding dysphagia. Evaluation was done with the dysphagia short questionnaire preoperatively, at 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Reconstruction in the artificial disc replacement group was performed with the Discover artificial disc. Bone graft and anterior plating was used in the ACDF group. Type of implant was blinded to the patients and the surgeon until time of implantation.

RESULTS

Demographics and dysphagia short questionnaire levels were similar in both groups preoperative. At 4 weeks of follow-up postoperatively, dysphagia was significantly higher in both groups than baseline levels, P < 0.01. No significant differences were seen between the groups until follow-up at 2 years, which showed significantly higher dysphagia short questionnaire levels in the ACDF group, P = 0.04. The difference was statistically significant in both patients treated with 1- and 2-level surgery, P = 0.029 and P = 0.032, respectively. A logistic regression model showed a stronger association to type of implant than to number of surgical levels. Duration of surgery was highly associated to number of surgical levels but did not differ significantly between types of implant.

CONCLUSION

Long-term postoperative dysphagia could be explained by bulk of implant or decreased motion in the cervical spine. However, it is doubtful if differences between the groups in this study can be interpreted as a clinically important difference.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 38, no 24, E1507-E1510 p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-216207DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a516efISI: 000330378900001PubMedID: 23883828OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-216207DiVA: diva2:689229
Available from: 2014-01-20 Created: 2014-01-20 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Olerud, Claes

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Olerud, Claes
By organisation
Orthopaedics
In the same journal
Spine
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 506 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf