Abstract
Study Design
Prospective Cohort Study
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the impact of preoperative dysphagia on the postoperative incidence and severity of dysphagia in patients undergoing ACDF at multiple institutions.
Methods
After IRB approval, patients over 18 years of age who underwent an elective ACDF for degenerative conditions were prospectively enrolled at two academic centers from 2018 to 2021. Preoperative dysphagia was self-reported by patients through a pre-operative questionnaire on a binary basis. Patients completed dysphagia surveys (Bazaz, Dysphagia Short Questionnaire, 10-item Eating Assessment Tool) to assess dysphagia severity during their preoperative visit, and these dysphagia surveys were repeated immediately postoperatively, at two weeks and again at six, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. Patients were stratified into three subgroups based on dysphagia status preoperatively and immediately postoperatively and compared using ANOVA tests or Kruskal–Wallis tests for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square analysis or Fisher’s Exact test for categorical variables.
Results
A total of 168 patients (23 with preoperative dysphagia, 145 without preoperative dysphagia) met study criteria and were enrolled in the study. Patients with preoperative dysphagia had less frequent alcohol consumption (23.8% vs 53.7%, P = .0210), and higher rates of dysphagia at 2-weeks (77.8% vs 38.7%, P = .004) and 24-weeks (43.8% vs 14.8%, P = .010) postoperatively. These patients also had higher severity scores for dysphagia on the Bazaz (P = .001), DSQ (P = .012), EAT10 (P = .022) questionnaires at the 2-week follow-up period, higher DSQ scores (P = .036) at the 6-week follow-up period, higher EAT-10 scores (P = .009) at the 12-week follow-up period, and higher Bazaz (P = .001), DSQ (P = .002), and EAT-10 (P = .005) scores at the 24-week follow-up period. There were no differences in demographic, medical history, surgical variables, rates of ENT consultation, length of stay, or other in-hospital events between groups.
Conclusions
Patients undergoing ACDF who had preoperative dysphagia have prolonged postoperative dysphagia and greater dysphagia severity. Surgeons should be aware of the risk of prolonged dysphagia severity that may persist past 24 weeks after surgery when discussing clinical decisions with patients.
Keywords: dysphagia, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical
Introduction
Dysphagia is one of the most common postoperative complaints following anterior cervical spine surgery. Dysphagia has been associated with increased postoperative morbidity including increased hospital length of stay, higher rates of readmission, and functional disability. 1 While this issue is undoubtedly multifactorial in nature, some of the proposed etiologies include prolonged esophageal retraction resulting in neuropraxia to the esophageal branches of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, esophageal ischemia, and local edema, particularly in the setting of prior neck surgery. 2 With that being said, patient-specific risk factors have yet to be fully elucidated in the literature as numerous studies offer conflicting conclusions.1-3
Although the issue of dysphagia is a well-documented perioperative issue following anterior cervical spine surgery, and more specifically anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), several studies evaluating the incidence and severity of this issue have been limited by their retrospective designs, cohort sizes, and inconsistent use of dysphagia assessment tools. Therefore, the reported severity of dysphagia and associated degree of impairment that occurs following ACDF also varies significantly within the literature, with most studies suggesting that symptoms are transient and generally resolve without treatment.3-6 In addition, the impact of anterior cervical surgery on patients with baseline dysphagia also remains unclear. While the literature does highlight that preoperative dysphagia is a risk-factor for developing or retaining postoperative dysphagia, it is unclear if this finding has any significant impact on a patient’s immediate postoperative course. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the impact of preoperative dysphagia on the postoperative incidence and severity of dysphagia in patients undergoing ACDF at multiple institutions. We hypothesize that preoperative dysphagia increases the postoperative incidence and severity of dysphagia in patients following ACDF.
Materials and Methods
Patient Selection and Data Collection
After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained, all subjects provided informed written consent to participate in the study. Patients over 18 years of age who underwent an elective anterior discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative conditions were prospectively enrolled at two academic centers. Patients were excluded from the study if they received surgical intervention for tumors, infections, trauma, or revision at the index level. Informed consent for study participation was obtained, and patients were asked to complete a preoperative demographic and medical history questionnaire that included age, sex, BMI, smoking status (never, former, current smoker), alcohol consumption, presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and major depressive disorder (MDD), and preoperative usage of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and/or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). In addition, postoperative information was obtained via chart review that included number of levels fused, surgery length, perioperative IV corticosteroid use, and clinical follow-up. Preoperative dysphagia was self-reported by patients through a pre-operative questionnaire on a binary basis (yes or no). The cause of pre-operative dysphagia was not evaluated. Patients also completed dysphagia surveys (Bazaz, Dysphagia Short Questionnaire, 10-item Eating Assessment Tool) to assess dysphagia severity during their preoperative visit, and these dysphagia surveys were repeated immediately postoperatively, at two weeks and again at six, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively during regularly scheduled follow-up appointments. Additionally, in-hospital course events were recorded including diet alteration, unplanned postoperative steroid usage, consults from speech pathology and otolaryngology (ENT), adjunct cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), nasogastric tube usage, and reintubation.
Dysphagia Questionnaires
Bazaz Scale: The Bazaz dysphagia scale grades dysphagia on a none/mild/moderate/severe scale by evaluating difficulties in patients with consuming liquids and solid foods. A numerical scoring system ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (severe) was further introduced to facilitate analysis with a higher Bazaz score indicating more severe dysphagia.
Dysphagia Short Questionnaire (DSQ): The DSQ evaluates the perceptions of swallowing difficulty in patients after anterior cervical spine surgery. A score is calculated by totaling points obtained from 5 items, resulting in a DSQ score from 0 to a maximum of 18 points. A higher DSQ score represents more severe dysphagia symptoms.
10-item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) Questionnaire: The EAT-10 questionnaire asks patients to rate how difficult activities are for them on a scale of 0-4. These activities include difficulty swallowing liquids, solids, and pills, pain with swallowing, and weight loss due to swallowing problems. A higher EAT-10 score represents more severe dysphagia symptoms.
Statistical Analysis
Patients were grouped according to preoperative dysphagia status. All data points were entered into and stored in a computerized database. Descriptive statistics were used to present patient demographics and outcome measures, and were characterized by mean ± standard deviation. Continuous variables were analyzed using either an independent t-test or Mann Whitney U-test, for parametric and non-parametric data, respectively. All categorical variables were compared using a Chi-square or Fisher’s Exact test depending on cell count. A subset of the patient cohort with additional data for evaluation was subjectively analyzed for further consideration of in-hospital events or outcomes and compared in the same manner. Additionally, patients were stratified into three subgroups based on dysphagia status preoperatively and immediately postoperatively (patients with preoperative dysphagia, patients without preoperative dysphagia who developed postoperative dysphagia, patients without preoperative dysphagia who did not develop postoperative dysphagia) and compared using ANOVA tests or Kruskal–Wallis tests for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square analysis or Fisher’s Exact test for categorical variables. Statistical analysis utilized R Studio Version 4.0.2 (Boston, MA). A P-value of less than .05 was empirically considered statistically significant.
Results
Patient Demographics and Surgical Characteristics
From 2018 to 2021, a total of 168 patients (23 with preoperative dysphagia, 145 without preoperative dysphagia) met study criteria and were enrolled in the study. There were 90 women and 78 men in the study with an average age of 54.9 ± 11.6 years. Patients with preoperative dysphagia had less frequent alcohol consumption (23.8% vs 53.7%, P = .021). There were no further differences in demographics between groups for age (56.7 ± 10.2 vs 54.7 ± 11.8 years, P = .404), sex (43.5% male vs 46.9% male, P = .936), BMI (32.0 ± 7.68 vs 30.1 ± 5.86, P = .342), and smoking status (8.70% vs 10.4% current smokers, P = 1.000) (Table 1). With regards to preoperative diagnoses or medication usage, there were no differences between groups for diagnoses of GERD (20.0% vs 36.8%, P = .236) or MMD (25.0% vs 24.1%, P = 1.000) and usage of PPI (50.0% vs 34.5%, P = .448) or SSRI (12.5% vs 24.1%, P = .671) (Table 1). In terms of surgical characteristics, patients with preoperative dysphagia had a nonsignificant increase in surgery length (120 ± 57.3 vs 98.9 ± 56.8 min, P = .085). There were no differences in number of levels fused (P = .837) or IV steroid use (90.0% vs 93.9%, P = .622) between groups (Table 1).
Table 1.
Demographics of Cohort.
| Variable | No Preoperative Dysphagia | Preoperative Dysphagia | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 145 | N = 23 | ||
| Age | 54.7 (11.8) | 56.7 (10.2) | .404 |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 77 (53.1%) | 13 (56.5%) | .936 |
| Male | 68 (46.9%) | 10 (43.5%) | |
| BMI | 30.1 (5.86) | 32.0 (7.68) | .342 |
| Smoking | |||
| Non-smoker | 129 (89.6%) | 21 (91.3%) | 1.000 |
| Current smoker | 15 (10.4%) | 2 (8.70%) | |
| Alcohol consumption | |||
| No | 62 (46.3%) | 16 (76.2%) | .021 |
| Yes | 72 (53.7%) | 5 (23.8%) | |
| Number of levels operated | |||
| 1 | 62 (44.6%) | 8 (36.4%) | .837 |
| 2 | 53 (38.1%) | 10 (45.5%) | |
| 3 | 21 (15.1%) | 4 (18.2%) | |
| 4 | 3 (2.16%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| Surgery length (minutes) | 98.9 (56.8) | 120 (57.3) | .085 |
| IV steroids | |||
| No | 6 (6.12%) | 2 (10.0%) | .622 |
| Yes | 92 (93.9%) | 18 (90.0%) | |
| Preoperative GERD diagnosis | |||
| No | 60 (63.2%) | 16 (80.0%) | .236 |
| Yes | 35 (36.8%) | 4 (20.0%) | |
| Preoperative PPI usage | |||
| No | 38 (65.5%) | 4 (50.0%) | .448 |
| Yes | 20 (34.5%) | 4 (50.0%) | |
| Preoperative MDD | |||
| No | 44 (75.9%) | 6 (75.0%) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 14 (24.1%) | 2 (25.0%) | |
| Preoperative SSRI usage | |||
| No | 44 (75.9%) | 7 (87.5%) | .671 |
| Yes | 14 (24.1%) | 1 (12.5%) | |
Pre- and Post-Operative Dysphagia Characteristics and Outcomes
At baseline, patients with preoperative dysphagia had higher severity scores on the Bazaz (3.35 ± 1.77 vs .12 ± .57, P < .001), DSQ (4.09 ± 2.18 vs .30 ± 1.11, P < .001), and EAT-10 questionnaires (5.71 ± 4.17 vs .38 ± 2.18, P < .001) (Table 2). Total rates of dysphagia increased to 43.2% immediately postoperatively but eventually decreased to 18.1% at 24-weeks. When evaluating for differences in postoperative dysphagia incidence, patients with preoperative dysphagia had higher rates of dysphagia immediately postoperatively (77.8% vs 38.7%, P = .004) and 24-weeks (43.8% vs 14.8%, P = .010). Patients with preoperative dysphagia also had higher severity scores for dysphagia on the Bazaz (3.47 ± 2.44 vs 1.65 ± 2.18, P = .001), DSQ (4.32 ± 3.11 vs 2.68 ± 3.02, P = .012), EAT-10 (8.41 ± 8.74 vs 4.76 ± 7.58, P = .022) questionnaires immediately postoperatively, the Bazaz (2.28 ± 2.70, vs 1.28 ± 2.01, P = .071) and DSQ (3.22 ± 2.96 vs 1.90 ± 2.61, P = .036) questionnaires at the 6-week follow-up period, the EAT-10 (3.32 ± 5.94 vs 1.37 ± 2.70, P = .009) at the 12-week follow-up period, and the Bazaz (1.81 ± 2.32 vs .52 ± 1.21, P = .001), DSQ (2.38 ± 2.42 vs .96 ± 1.99, P = .002), and EAT-10 (4.42 ± 7.88 vs 1.08 ± 2.78, P = .005) at the 24-week follow-up period (Table 2).
Table 2.
Dysphagia Characteristics.
| Variable | No Preoperative Dysphagia | Preoperative Dysphagia | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 145 | N = 23 | ||
| Preoperative dysphagia severity bazaz [0-10] | .12 (.57) | 3.35 (1.77) | <.001 |
| Preoperative dysphagia DSQ total | .30 (1.11) | 4.09 (2.18) | <.001 |
| Preoperative dysphagia EAT-10 total | .38 (2.18) | 5.71 (4.17) | <.001 |
| Dysphagia at 2 weeks | |||
| No | 84 (61.3%) | 4 (22.2%) | .004 |
| Yes | 53 (38.7%) | 14 (77.8%) | |
| 2-week dysphagia severity Bazaz [0-10] | 1.65 (2.18) | 3.47 (2.44) | .001 |
| 2-week dysphagia DSQ total | 2.68 (2.90) | 4.32 (3.11) | .012 |
| 2-week dysphagia EAT-10 total | 4.76 (7.58) | 8.41 (8.74) | .022 |
| Dysphagia at 6 weeks | |||
| No | 94 (69.1%) | 10 (55.6%) | .375 |
| Yes | 42 (30.9%) | 8 (44.4%) | |
| 6-week dysphagia severity bazaz [0-10] | 1.28 (2.01) | 2.28 (2.70) | .071 |
| 6-week dysphagia DSQ total | 1.90 (2.61) | 3.22 (2.96) | .036 |
| 6-week dysphagia EAT-10 total | 3.21 (5.79) | 4.57 (6.13) | .150 |
| Dysphagia at 12 weeks | |||
| No | 110 (83.3%) | 14 (73.7%) | .338 |
| Yes | 22 (16.7%) | 5 (26.3%) | |
| 12-week dysphagia severity Bazaz [0-10] | .62 (1.37) | 1.00 (1.91) | .161 |
| 12-week dysphagia DSQ total | 1.24 (1.68) | 2.26 (3.00) | .152 |
| 12-week dysphagia EAT-10 total | 1.37 (2.70) | 3.32 (5.94) | .009 |
| Dysphagia at 24 weeks | |||
| No | 104 (85.2%) | 9 (56.2%) | .010 |
| Yes | 18 (14.8%) | 7 (43.8%) | |
| 24-week dysphagia severity Bazaz [0-10] | .52 (1.21) | 1.81 (2.32) | .001 |
| 24-week dysphagia DSQ total | .96 (1.99) | 2.38 (2.42) | .002 |
| 24-week dysphagia EAT-10 total | 1.08 (2.78) | 4.42 (7.88) | .005 |
Post-Operative In-Hospital Events and Outcomes
When comparing the postoperative course for patients with and without preoperative dysphagia, there were no differences in the rates of diet alteration (5.00% vs 10.1%, P = .688), unplanned postoperative steroid administration (10.0% vs 6.06%, P = .620), speech and swallow assessment (5.00% vs 1.01%, P = .309), adjunct cervical spine MRI (10.0% vs 4.04%, P = .265), and nasogastric tube placement (.00% vs 1.01%, P = 1.000) (Table 3). In addition, there were no patients who required postoperative ENT consultation or reintubation. There were no differences in 90-day hospital readmissions (.00% vs 6.06%, P = .588) or emergency department (ED) visits in the postoperative setting (5.00% vs 8.08%, P = 1.000) (Table 3).
Table 3.
In Hospital and Postoperative Events.
| Variable | No Preoperative Dysphagia | Preoperative Dysphagia | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 99 | N = 20 | ||
| Diet alteration | |||
| No | 89 (89.9%) | 19 (95.0%) | .688 |
| Yes | 10 (10.1%) | 1 (5.00%) | |
| Unplanned postoperative steroids | |||
| No | 93 (93.9%) | 18 (90.0%) | .620 |
| Yes | 6 (6.06%) | 2 (10.0%) | |
| Speech and swallow assessment | |||
| No | 98 (99.0%) | 19 (95.0%) | .309 |
| Yes | 1 (1.01%) | 1 (5.00%) | |
| ENT consult | |||
| No | 99 (100%) | 20 (100%) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| Adjunct C-spine MRI | |||
| No | 95 (96.0%) | 18 (90.0%) | .265 |
| Yes | 4 (4.04%) | 2 (10.0%) | |
| Nasogastric tube placement | |||
| No | 98 (99.0%) | 20 (100%) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 1 (1.01%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| Reintubation | |||
| No | 99 (100%) | 20 (100%) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| Hospital readmission | |||
| No | 93 (93.9%) | 20 (100%) | .588 |
| Yes | 6 (6.06%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| 90-day postoperative ED visit | |||
| No | 91 (91.9%) | 19 (95.0%) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 8 (8.08%) | 1 (5.00%) | |
Sub-Analysis of Post-Operative Dysphagia Outcomes and In-Hospital Events
Patients with new onset dysphagia in the immediate postoperative setting (n = 39) were compared to those patients without postoperative dysphagia (n = 58) as well as those with prior preoperative dysphagia (n = 20). Patients who had new onset dysphagia reported higher dysphagia severity on the Bazaz (4.03 ± 2.07 P < .001), DSQ (4.97 ± 3.06, P < .001), EAT-10 (11.3 ± 9.61, P < .001) questionnaires compared to the other two cohorts in the immediate postoperative period. At six weeks post-operatively, dysphagia severity scores for the new onset dysphagia cohort closely mirrored scores of those with prior pre-operative dysphagia. By 12 and 24 weeks post-operatively, dysphagia severity scores for the new onset dysphagia cohort were significantly lower than the scores of those with prior pre-operative dysphagia (Table 4). This trend was consistent across all three dysphagia questionnaires at the 12- and 24-week post-operative period, except for the 12-week Bazaz score.
Table 4.
Sub-analysis of Postoperative Dysphagia Outcomes and In-Hospital Events.
| Variable | No Prior or Postoperative Dysphagia | New Onset Dysphagia | Had Prior Dysphagia | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 58 | N = 39 | N = 20 | ||
| 2-week dysphagia severity Bazaz [0-10] | .33 (.85) | 4.03 (2.07) | 3.47 (2.44) | <.001 |
| 2-week dysphagia DSQ total | 1.45 (2.29) | 4.97 (3.06) | 4.32 (3.11) | <.001 |
| 2-week dysphagia EAT-10 total | 1.60 (3.41) | 11.3 (9.61) | 9.74 (8.69) | <.001 |
| Dysphagia at 6 weeks | ||||
| No | 50 (87.7%) | 15 (41.7%) | 10 (55.6%) | <.001 |
| Yes | 7 (12.3%) | 21 (58.3%) | 8 (44.4%) | |
| 6-week dysphagia severity Bazaz [0-10] | .53 (1.36) | 2.00 (1.87) | 2.28 (2.70) | <.001 |
| 6-week dysphagia DSQ total | .88 (1.98) | 3.14 (2.97) | 3.22 (2.96) | <.001 |
| 6-week dysphagia EAT-10 total | 1.30 (3.63) | 6.08 (7.59) | 5.33 (6.32) | <.001 |
| Dysphagia at 12 weeks | ||||
| No | 53 (93.0%) | 20 (57.1%) | 14 (73.7%) | <.001 |
| Yes | 4 (7.02%) | 15 (42.9%) | 5 (26.3%) | |
| 12-week dysphagia severity Bazaz [0-10] | .32 (1.09) | 1.34 (1.95) | 1.00 (1.91) | <.001 |
| 12-week dysphagia DSQ total | .82 (1.48) | 2.09 (1.92) | 2.26 (3.00) | .001 |
| 12-week dysphagia EAT-10 total | .70 (1.72) | 2.51 (2.91) | 3.84 (6.25) | <.001 |
| Dysphagia at 24 weeks | ||||
| 0 | 51 (94.4%) | 18 (56.2%) | 9 (56.2%) | <.001 |
| 1 | 3 (5.56%) | 14 (43.8%) | 7 (43.8%) | |
| 24-week dysphagia severity Bazaz [0-10] | .09 (.40) | 1.47 (1.85) | 1.81 (2.32) | <.001 |
| 24-week dysphagia DSQ total | .56 (1.49) | 1.65 (2.50) | 2.38 (2.42) | <.001 |
| 24-week dysphagia EAT-10 total | .59 (1.52) | 2.03 (2.96) | 5.25 (8.36) | <.001 |
| Diet alteration | ||||
| No | 56 (96.6%) | 32 (82.1%) | 19 (95.0%) | .050 |
| Yes | 2 (3.45%) | 7 (17.9%) | 1 (5.00%) | |
| Unplanned postoperative steroids | ||||
| No | 54 (93.1%) | 37 (94.9%) | 18 (90.0%) | .787 |
| Yes | 4 (6.90%) | 2 (5.13%) | 2 (10.0%) | |
| Speech and swallow assessment | ||||
| No | 58 (100%) | 38 (97.4%) | 19 (95.0%) | .252 |
| Yes | 0 (.00%) | 1 (2.56%) | 1 (5.00%) | |
| ENT consult | ||||
| No | 58 (100%) | 39 (100%) | 20 (100%) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 0 (.00%) | 1 (2.56%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| Adjunct C-spine MRI | ||||
| No | 56 (96.6%) | 37 (94.9%) | 18 (90.0%) | .461 |
| Yes | 2 (3.45%) | 2 (5.13%) | 2 (10.0%) | |
| Nasogastric tube placement | ||||
| No | 58 (100%) | 38 (97.4%) | 20 (100%) | .504 |
| Yes | 0 (.00%) | 1 (2.56%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| Reintubation | ||||
| No | 58 (100%) | 39 (100%) | 20 (100%) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| Hospital readmission | ||||
| No | 55 (94.8%) | 36 (92.3%) | 20 (100%) | .551 |
| Yes | 3 (5.17%) | 3 (7.69%) | 0 (.00%) | |
| 90-day postoperative ED visit | ||||
| No | 55 (94.8%) | 34 (87.2%) | 19 (95.0%) | .382 |
| Yes | 3 (5.17%) | 5 (12.8%) | 1 (5.00%) | |
When evaluating the incidence of postoperative dysphagia over the 24-week post-operative period, patients with new-onset post-operative dysphagia reported a higher rate of dysphagia incidence at six weeks (58.3%, P < .001) and 12 weeks (42.9%, P < .001), but the same rate at 24 weeks (43.8%) post-operatively as patients with prior preoperative dysphagia. By six weeks post-operatively, over 50% of patients with prior preoperative dysphagia reported resolution of their dysphagia symptoms. This remained consistent at six months post-operatively. With regard to in-hospital events, the new-onset post-operative dysphagia cohort also reported a higher rate of diet alteration (17.9%, P = .050) compared to the other two cohorts (Table 4).
Discussion
Postoperative dysphagia is common after ACDF and can be an unavoidable outcome associated with the procedure. Symptoms are generally only present in the early postoperative period but may continue into the 12-week postoperative period. 7 Reported incidence varies in the literature, ranging from 1.7 to 71% postoperatively, 8 with the wide variation at least in part due to differences in how dysphagia is defined within individual investigations. Despite such high dysphagia rates reported, risk factors for developing dysphagia after ACDF are incompletely understood. Potential causes are multifactorial and may be attributed to the thickness of the cervical plate, soft tissue swelling, and reperfusion injury. Additionally, the number of levels involved in the ACDF may contribute due to the amount of dissection and soft tissue retraction required, though this is variably reported in the literature.7,9
Establishing a standardized method in determining the risk of developing persistent postoperative dysphagia after ACDF may guide patient follow-up and management. Studies determining risk have focused on different variables without a standardized metric for risk stratification.8,10,11 Such studies have supported the individual assessment tools used in the present study to reliably evaluate dysphagia severity, though certain measures are more efficacious than others. 12 The EAT-10 assessment has often been the preferred measure of post-operative dysphagia due to its demonstrated accuracy and improved ability to identify significant dysphagia over similar methods such as the Bazaz score.12,18,26 In order to address any potential deficiencies of a single assessment and better capture the variability of dysphagia presentation and patient perception of severity, three questionnaires were used in the present study. These included the Bazaz, DSQ, and EAT-10 scores. These scores were used to evaluate an association with persistence and severity of postoperative dysphagia in patients with and without preoperative dysphagia. The results of our study demonstrate that the presence of dysphagia or pre-existing difficulties with swallowing before ACDF may lead to an exacerbation and/or prolonged persistence of dysphagia symptoms after ACDF. After further stratifying patients with immediate post-operative dysphagia into those with or without pre-existing preoperative dysphagia, our results demonstrate that patients with new-onset post-operative dysphagia perceive higher dysphagia severity. This reported difference in dysphagia severity was transient and waned by 12 weeks post-operatively. A majority of patients (56.2%) with new-onset post-operative dysphagia had complete resolution of their symptoms at the 24-week period.
Several studies have examined similar patterns of postoperative dysphagia after ACDF. At one month postoperatively, Bazaz et al. reported a 47.3% rate of dysphagia, which decreased to 20.2% at six months. 13 Separately, Tervonen et al. found an overall dysphagia incidence of 69% at the immediate postoperative visit, with 13.3% of patients reporting persistent dysphagia within a 3-9-month postoperative period. 14 These rates are comparable to our overall rates of dysphagia of 43.2% at 2-week follow-up and 18.1% at 24-weeks, providing external validity to our findings. While the majority of patients who developed new onset dysphagia following ACDF had resolution of their symptoms within the first six months postoperatively, 43.8% of patients with baseline dysphagia still experienced persistent symptoms beyond the 6-month follow-up period, demonstrating a three-fold risk increase for prolonged symptoms after surgery compared to patients without baseline dysphagia. Therefore, standard preoperative screening for dysphagia and the inclusion of dysphagia in patient selection and shared patient-surgeon decision making should be considered.
The association between operative time and incidence of postoperative dysphagia has been variably reported in the literature.4,7,15-17 Increased operative times could be attributed to the complexity of the procedure as well as other intraoperative variables that are not directly related to dysphagia status. Our study found that the operative times for patients with dysphagia were higher than in patients without dysphagia, though this difference was not statistically significant. Though the number of levels fused may also influence the operative time, evidence of this association is not consistent and was not primarily measured in our study. Regardless, surgeons should be conscientious of minimizing retractor time and pressure during surgery to avoid exacerbating symptoms in patients with underlying dysphagia.
A diagnosis of oropharyngeal dysphagia can inherently lead to necessary postoperative ENT consultation. This clinical scenario presents a challenge for ENT specialists as dysphagia-specific risk factors such as respiratory and neurological co-morbidities may not be taken into consideration during the standard pre-operative assessment for orthopedic spine surgery. 19 This may result in the development of post-operative dysphagia and associated complications such as aspiration pneumonia, dehydration, and malnutrition. 20 Although literature is limited on the dearth of ENT referrals and consults following ACDF, this trend may be attributed to reasons such as the lack of postoperative dysphagia-specific screening, failure of practitioners to recognize the severity of dysphagia, and inadequate postoperative follow up. 21 While we found that patients with new-onset post-operative dysphagia reported a higher rate of diet alteration in the immediate post-operative period, no patients in our study’s cohort required any form of postoperative-ENT consultation or assessment while in the hospital. Though the difference in postoperative ENT-related complications between those with and without an ENT assessment was not significant in our study, there may be credence to a multi-disciplinary approach to preoperative dysphagia assessment with ENT-specific variables factored in such as possible reintubation, vocal fold paralysis, and dysphonia. Given that otolaryngologic complications of anterior cervical surgery are often underreported, pre and postoperative otolaryngologic evaluations for dysphagia should be obtained for at-risk patients undergoing ACDF. 22 This is especially significant given the relatively high incidence of postoperative dysphonia and dysphagia for ACDF procedures in both our cohort and in literature.7,23
Additionally, there is a considerable number of factors to consider when regarding both immediate and long-term otolaryngology-specific complications for ACDF. Reintubation following ACDF was found to be statistically greater for older patients with multilevel fusions and, independently, those with postoperative dysphagia. 24 Regarding the latter, this is likely attributed to soft-tissue swelling following the procedure, which may result in dysphagia and ultimately reintubation. 25 Likewise, it has been reported that the risk of vocal fold motion impairment is significantly higher for lower level (C7/T1) fusions and patients who develop postoperative dysphagia or dysphonia. 23 Although early preoperative otolaryngology consultation and assessment may prove to be beneficial in reducing morbidity for this patient population in both identifying dysphagia and its associated complications, no patients in our study were reintubated, and there were no differences between groups in rates of speech pathology consultation, adjunct cervical spine MRI imaging, or other postoperative events affecting length of stay in our study.
There are a number of limitations to the present study. Although a multicenter prospective study increases the diversity of our patient population, our results were limited to patients within the included sites. The small patient cohort (n = 168) and patients lost to follow-up limit the statistical power of the study. Our loss to follow-up rate was 8.3%, 10.1% and 17.8% at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks post-operatively, respectively. Specifically, with respect to patients with preoperative dysphagia, there was a higher attrition rate of 17.4% and 30.4% at 12 and 24 weeks post-operatively, which may bias our results. The late increase in dysphagia rates in the preoperative dysphagia cohort may derive from attrition between 12 and 24 week cohorts and therefore, should be interpreted cautiously. Although there were no differences in post-operative in-hospital events and outcomes such as diet alteration, postoperative steroids, speech pathology consultation, adjunct cervical spine MRI, and nasogastric tube placement, the interpretations of these outcomes are limited. The study was not powered to detect statistically significant differences in these low incidence outcomes, but rather to qualitatively comment on them. Additionally, inherent differences in the content of the three questionnaires used to stratify risk may limit the effect of using a single instrument to determine preoperative dysphagia risk. For instance, Skeppholm et al. found that Bazaz scores did not correlate with the DSQ in the context of a validation study. 11 This may affect the generalizability of our current study given that one of three instruments was administered to patients as an analogue for dysphagia severity. Despite this, our findings indicate that all three instruments were highly correlated with each other (r > .800), suggesting a low likelihood of heterogeneity between instruments. A standardized metric for quantifying dysphagia risk may provide a better understanding of dysphagia incidence rates better suited for ACDF patients.
Conclusion
Patients undergoing ACDF with pre-existing dysphagia have greater postoperative dysphagia severity and demonstrate a three-fold increased risk of prolonged post-operative dysphagia compared to patients without pre-existing dysphagia. Furthermore, patients with new-onset post-operative dysphagia perceive higher dysphagia severity in the early post-operative period compared to those with pre-existing dysphagia. This difference in dysphagia severity is transient and wanes by 12 weeks post-operatively. The majority of patients with new onset post-operative dysphagia report complete resolution of their symptoms by 24 weeks post-operatively. Patients with pre-existing dysphagia return to baseline levels of dysphagia severity after a prolonged postoperative period. There was no difference in rates of ENT consultation, length of stay, or other in-hospital events between groups. These findings elucidate the impact of pre-operative dysphagia on post-operative dysphagia duration and severity and may be used to guide perioperative counseling of patients.
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
IRB Approval: IRB approval number: 18D.209
ORCID iDs
Aditya Mazmudar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4628-4067
Samuel Oh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0601-4134
Goutham Yalla https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0863-2953
Erica Bisson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8583-8544
Darrel Brodke https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8749-3765
Alan Hilibrand https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8811-9687
References
- 1.Arnold PM, Rice LR, Anderson KK, McMahon JK, Connelly LM, Norvell DC. Factors affecting hospital length of stay following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2011;2(3):11-18. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1267108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cheung JP, Luk KD. Complications of anterior and posterior cervical spine surgery. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(2):385-400. doi: 10.4184/asj.2016.10.2.385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Liu FY, Yang DL, Huang WZ, et al. Risk factors for dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltim). 2017;96(10):e6267. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000006267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Chin KR, Eiszner JR, Adams SB., Jr. Role of plate thickness as a cause of dysphagia after anterior cervical fusion. Spine. 2007;32(23):2585-2590. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318158dec8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bose B. Anterior cervical fusion using caspar plating: analysis of results and review of the literature. Surg Neurol. 1998;49(1):25-31. doi: 10.1016/s0090-3019(97)00306-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Daniels SK, Mahoney MC, Lyons GD. Persistent dysphagia and dysphonia following cervical spine surgery. Ear Nose Throat J. 1998;77(6):470, 473-475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rihn JA, Kane J, Albert TJ, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS. What is the incidence and severity of dysphagia after anterior cervical surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(3):658-665. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1731-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Shriver MF, Lewis DJ, Kshettry VR, Rosenbaum BP, Benzel EC, Mroz TE. Dysphagia rates after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2017;7(1):95-103. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1583944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine. 2007;32(21):2310-2317. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318154c57e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Arslan SS, Demir N, Kılınç HE, Karaduman AA. The ability of the eating assessment tool-10 to detect aspiration in patients with neurological disorders. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;23(4):550-554. doi: 10.5056/jnm16165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Skeppholm M, Ingebro C, Engström T, Olerud C. The dysphagia short questionnaire: an instrument for evaluation of dysphagia: a validation study with 12 months' follow-up after anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine. 2012;37(11):996-1002. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823a7a5b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rosenthal BD, McCarthy MH, Bhatt S, et al. A comparison of patient-centered outcome measures to evaluate dysphagia and dysphonia after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27(22):848-853. doi: 10.5435/jaaos-d-17-00631 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bazaz R, Lee MJ, Yoo JU. Incidence of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: a prospective study. Spine. 2002;27(22):2453-2458. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tervonen H, Niemelä M, Lauri ER, et al. Dysphonia and dysphagia after anterior cervical decompression. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(2):124-130. doi: 10.3171/spi-07/08/124 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Kalb S, Reis MT, Cowperthwaite MC, et al. Dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: incidence and risk factors. World Neurosurgery. 2012;77(1):183-187. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2011.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Vaishnav AS, Saville P, McAnany S, et al. Predictive factors of postoperative dysphagia in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine. 2019;44(7):E400-e407. doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000002865 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Smith-Hammond CA, New KC, Pietrobon R, Curtis DJ, Scharver CH, Turner DA. Prospective analysis of incidence and risk factors of dysphagia in spine surgery patients: comparison of anterior cervical, posterior cervical, and lumbar procedures. Spine. 2004;29(13):1441-1446. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000129100.59913.ea [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Nguyen S, Sherrod BA, Paziuk TM, et al. Predictors of dysphagia after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective multicenter study. Spine. 2022;47(12):859-864. doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000004279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Love AL, Cornwell PL, Whitehouse SL. Oropharyngeal dysphagia in an elderly post-operative hip fracture population: a prospective cohort study. Age Ageing. 2013;42(6):782-785. doi: 10.1093/ageing/aft037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Santoro PP, Furia CLB, Forte AP, et al. Otolaryngology and speech therapy evaluation in the assessment of oropharyngeal dysphagia: a combined protocol proposal. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 2011;77(2):201-213. doi: 10.1590/S1808-86942011000200010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Haller L, Mehul Kharidia K, Bertelsen C, Wang J, O’Dell K. Post-operative dysphagia in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2022;131(3):289-294. doi: 10.1177/00034894211015582 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Winslow CP, Meyers AD. Otolaryngologic complications of the anterior approach to the cervical spine. Am J Otolaryngol. 1999;20(1):16-27. doi: 10.1016/S0196-0709(99)90046-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Strohl MP, Choy W, Clark AJ, et al. Immediate voice and swallowing complaints following revision anterior cervical spine surgery. Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surg (Tokyo). 2020;163(4):778-784. doi: 10.1177/0194599820926133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Hardman M, Bhandarkar AR, Jarrah RM, Bydon M. Predictors of airway, respiratory, and pulmonary complications following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2022;217:107245. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2022.107245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Marquez-Lara A, Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Singh K. Incidence, outcomes, and mortality of reintubation after anterior cervical fusion. Spine. 2014;39(2):134-139. doi: 10.1097/brs.0000000000000098 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Belafsky PC, Mouadeb DA, Rees CJ, et al. Validity and reliability of the eating assessment tool (EAT-10). Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2008;117:919-924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]