Modified Tracheal Traction Exercise Reduces the Incidence of Dysphagia in Patients with Multilevel Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Jiasen Wei,Fudong Li,Jingchuan Sun,Zhenjun Zhu,Rui Shi,Jiangang Shi,Kaiqiang Sun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/os.14166
2024-07-20
Orthopaedic Surgery
Abstract:The procedure of modified tracheal traction exercise (MTTE). The patient is in supine position and a U‐shaped neck cushion is used to achieve cervical hyperextension. The operator confirms the location of thyroid cartilage, and then the thyroid cartilage is pushed to the left side at least 1 cm across the midline of the anterior neck. Before returning to the starting position, this status should be held for 5 s, swallowing when the pushing is performed. Objectives Dysphagia, an impairment in swallowing, is a frequent and debilitating complication for patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), a common surgical treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of modified tracheal traction exercise (MTTE) in alleviating postoperative dysphagia and improving clinical outcomes for these patients. Methods A cohort of 143 patients underwent multilevel fusions, equally distributed between MTTE (n = 75) and traditional tracheal traction exercise (TTTE) (n = 68) groups. Demographic parity was observed in gender distribution, age averages (MTTE: 51.43 ± 11.25 years; TTTE: 52.35 ± 10.43 years), body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, fusion segments, and preoperative hospitalization days. Surgical duration differences were assessed. Clinical outcomes, dysphagia incidence, blood loss, postoperative complications, Cervical Japanese Orthopedic Association (c‐JOA) scores, and functional outcome swallowing scale evaluations were conducted. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to explore factors influencing dysphagia. Results Modified tracheal traction exercise demonstrated advantages with a significantly lower dysphagia incidence (25.33% vs. 44.12%, p = 0.018), reduced blood loss (102.03 ± 17.04 vs. 113.46 ± 14.92, p
orthopedics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?