Cargando…
Dysphagia Rates after Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective surgical option for patients with cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, or deformity. Although ACDF is generally safe, dysphagia is a common complication. Despite its high inci...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5400168/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28451514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1583944 |
Sumario: | STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) is an effective surgical option for patients with cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, or deformity. Although ACDF is generally safe, dysphagia is a common complication. Despite its high incidence, prolonged postoperative dysphagia is poorly understood; its etiology remains relatively unknown, and its risk factors are widely debated. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for studies reporting complications for cervical diskectomy with plating. We recorded dysphagia events from all included studies and calculated effect summary values, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), Q values, and I (2) values. RESULTS: Of the 7,780 retrieved articles, 14 met inclusion criteria. The overall dysphagia rate was 8.5% (95% CI 5.7 to 11.3%). The rate of moderate or severe dysphagia was 4.4% (0.4 to 8.4%). Follow-up times of <12, 12 to 24, and >24 months reported rates of 19.9% (6.0 to 33.7%), 7.0% (5.2 to 8.7%), and 7.6% (1.4 to 13.8%), respectively. Studies utilizing the Bazaz Dysphagia Score resulted in an increase in dysphagia diagnosis relative to studies with no outlined criteria (19.8%, 5.9 to 33.7% and 6.9%, 3.7 to 10.0%, respectively), indicating that the criteria used for dysphagia identification are critical. There was no difference in dysphagia rate with the use of autograft versus allograft. CONCLUSIONS: This review represents a comprehensive estimation of the actual incidence of dysphagia across a heterogeneous group of surgeons, patients, and criteria. The classification scheme for dysphagia varied significantly within the literature. To ensure its diagnosis and identification, we recommend the use of a standardized, well-outlined method for dysphagia diagnosis. |
---|