An anterior cervical osteophyte is one of the causes of dysphagia. Surgical treatment is one of the treatment options available, and previous studies have suggested that it is an immediate and effective treatment. This paper reports a case of temporarily aggravated dysphagia after surgical treatment in a patient with anterior cervical osteophyte. A 75-year-old male complained of dysphagia for one year. A videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) revealed anterior cervical osteophytes at the C3 and C4 level, which resulted in decreased epiglottic folding and partial obstruction of the bolus passage. After he underwent osteophytectomy and anterior fixation, the post-operative VFSS showed an aggravation of dysphagia with prevertebral soft tissue edema. The major cause of dysphagia was attributed to the limitation of movement of the posterior pharyngeal wall and upper esophageal sphincter due to the increased prevertebral soft tissue thickness. In conclusion, surgery should be considered when a severe dysphagia is persistent after adequate conservative treatment in patients with dysphagia due to anterior cervical osteophytes, and patients at high risk of postoperative dysphagia might require swallowing rehabilitation.
Aged ; Cervical Vertebrae ; Deglutition ; Deglutition Disorders ; Edema ; Esophageal Sphincter, Upper ; Female ; Fluoroscopy ; Humans ; Male ; Osteophyte ; Rehabilitation

Objective: To analyze the rheological and biochemical properties of saliva in healthy adults. Methods: The subjects were seven healthy young adults (20-39 years). The whole saliva was collected by the spitting method between 9:00 am and 12:00 am. Unstimulated saliva was collected first, which was followed by the collection of stimulated saliva using citric acid was collected. The viscosity was measured using a capillary viscometer to examine the rheological properties. The MUC5B concentration was analyzed using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the biochemical properties. Results: Ten and five minutes were required on average for unstimulated saliva and stimulated saliva, respectively, to collect the minimum amount needed for analysis (8 ml). The flow rate increased from 1.037±0.323 ml/min to 1.823± 0.660 ml/min after stimulation (P=0.018). Citric acid stimulation also increased the MUC5B concentration in the saliva from 3.706±3.575 μg/ml to 6.928±2.03 μg/ml (P=0.028). The viscosity of saliva, however, did not show a significant difference between with (1.1±0.164 cSt) or without (1.019±0.08 cSt) stimulation (P=0.128). A positive correlation was observed between the flow rate and MUC5B concentration (Spearman’s rho=0.547, P=0.043). On the other hand, there was no significant correlation between the MUC5B concentration and viscosity both in the unstimulated and stimulated saliva (P=0.939 and 0.819, respectively). Conclusion No significant correlation was observed between the MUC5B concentration and viscosity. Considering the time required to collect samples, an analysis of the stimulated saliva appears feasible in various research settings.The feasibility of these analysis methods should be examined in a patient population.