Literature DB >> 10225797

Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis.

A S Hilibrand1, G D Carlson, M A Palumbo, P K Jones, H H Bohlman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We studied the incidence, prevalence, and radiographic progression of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease, which we defined as the development of new radiculopathy or myelopathy referable to a motion segment adjacent to the site of a previous anterior arthrodesis of the cervical spine.
METHODS: A consecutive series of 374 patients who had a total of 409 anterior cervical arthrodeses for the treatment of cervical spondylosis with radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both, were followed for a maximum of twenty-one years after the operation. The annual incidence of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was defined as the percentage of patients who had been disease-free at the start of a given year of follow-up in whom new disease developed during that year. The prevalence was defined as the percentage of all patients in whom symptomatic adjacent-segment disease developed within a given period of follow-up. The natural history of the disease was predicted with use of a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis. The hypothesis that new disease at an adjacent level is more likely to develop following a multilevel arthrodesis than it is following a single-level arthrodesis was tested with logistic regression.
RESULTS: Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease occurred at a relatively constant incidence of 2.9 percent per year (range, 0.0 to 4.8 percent per year) during the ten years after the operation. Survivorship analysis predicted that 25.6 percent of the patients (95 percent confidence interval, 20 to 32 percent) who had an anterior cervical arthrodesis would have new disease at an adjacent level within ten years after the operation. There were highly significant differences among the motion segments with regard to the likelihood of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease (p<0.0001); the greatest risk was at the interspaces between the fifth and sixth and between the sixth and seventh cervical vertebrae. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that the risk of new disease at an adjacent level was significantly lower following a multilevel arthrodesis than it was following a single-level arthrodesis (p<0.001). More than two-thirds of all patients in whom the new disease developed had failure of nonoperative management and needed additional operative procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease may affect more than one-fourth of all patients within ten years after an anterior cervical arthrodesis. A single-level arthrodesis involving the fifth or sixth cervical vertebra and preexisting radiographic evidence of degeneration at adjacent levels appear to be the greatest risk factors for new disease. Therefore, we believe that all degenerated segments causing radiculopathy or myelopathy should be included in an anterior cervical arthrodesis. Although our findings suggest that symptomatic adjacent-segment disease is the result of progressive spondylosis, patients should be informed of the substantial possibility that new disease will develop at an adjacent level over the long term.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10225797     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199904000-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  326 in total

1.  Surgical disorders of the cervical spine: presentation and management of common disorders.

Authors:  George P Malcolm
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 10.154

Review 2.  Cervical and lumbar spinal arthroplasty: clinical review.

Authors:  T D Uschold; D Fusco; R Germain; L M Tumialan; S W Chang
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 3.  Prevalence of heterotopic ossification after cervical total disc arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Xinwei Wang; Wanshan Bai; Xiaolong Shen; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of the cervical spine after anterior cervical decompression and fusion at an adjacent level: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Sadayoshi Watanabe; Nozomu Inoue; Tomonori Yamaguchi; Yoshitaka Hirano; Alejandro A Espinoza Orías; Shintaro Nishida; Yuichi Hirose; Junichi Mizuno
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Cervical spine: degenerative conditions.

Authors:  Andrew G Todd
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2011-12

6.  The effect of multilevel anterior cervical fusion on neck motion.

Authors:  Xiao-Dong Wu; Xin-Wei Wang; Wen Yuan; Yang Liu; Nicholas Tsai; Yu-Cheng Peng; Yu Chen; Cong Wang; Shi-Yi Gu; Hua-Jiang Chen; Xu-Hui Zhou; Hai-Long He; Yuan-Yuan Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Regenerating nucleus pulposus of the intervertebral disc using biodegradable nanofibrous polymer scaffolds.

Authors:  Ganjun Feng; Zhanpeng Zhang; Xiaobing Jin; Jiang Hu; Melanie J Gupte; Jeremy M Holzwarth; Peter X Ma
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part A       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 3.845

8.  Cervical spine surgery: an historical perspective.

Authors:  Vincenzo Denaro; Alberto Di Martino
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Hybrid surgery of multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease : review of literature and clinical results.

Authors:  Sang-Bok Lee; Kyoung-Suok Cho; Jong-Youn Kim; Do-Sung Yoo; Tae-Gyu Lee; Pil-Woo Huh
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2012-11-30

10.  Comparison of Fusion Rates Based on Graft Material Following Occipitocervical and Atlantoaxial Arthrodesis in Adults and Children.

Authors:  Leslie C Robinson; Richard C E Anderson; Douglas L Brockmeyer; Michelle R Torok; Todd C Hankinson
Journal:  Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 2.703

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.