Literature DB >> 16517386

Treatment of anterior cervical pseudoarthrosis: posterior fusion versus anterior revision.

Leah Carreon1, Steven D Glassman, Mitchell J Campbell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Posterior fusion has been advocated as the most effective treatment of anterior cervical pseudoarthrosis. Authors cite the benefits of increased stability and avoiding the risk of dissection through anterior scar tissue. Despite these advantages, posterior fusion is a more extensive procedure from the standpoint of perioperative and postoperative recovery.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to compare the results of posterior fusions to revision anterior fusions for repair of anterior cervical pseudoarthrosis. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: This is a retrospective case series from a single institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: 120 patients with nonunion documented on flexion-extension radiographs, computed tomography (CT) scan or tomograms after an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with at least 2-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical data, status of fusion, complications, and any revision surgeries.
METHODS: Hospital and office records were reviewed to determine demographic data, surgical data, status of fusion, and any revision surgeries. Nonunion was confirmed during surgery.
RESULTS: Of the 120 patients included in the study, 27 had repeat anterior procedures and 93 had posterior procedures. The proportion of smokers, the number of surgical levels, and the average time to revision in each group were similar. The average operative time for the anterior revision surgery was 134.9 minutes (range 49 to 232 minutes) with an estimated blood loss of 102.7 cc. In the posterior revision surgery the average operative time was 138.9 minutes (range 35 to 356 minutes) and an average estimated blood loss of 282.1 cc. The patients in the anterior revision group had an average hospital stay of 2.3 days (1 to 5 days), whereas those in the posterior revision group had an average hospital stay of 4.4 days (3 to 8 days). There was a 4% complication rate in the anterior revision group and an 8% complication rate in the posterior revision group. Twelve of 27 patients (44%) in the anterior revision group, and 2 of 93 patients in the posterior revision group required a second revision surgery for persistent nonunion.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, posterior fusion is more effective in treating anterior cervical pseudoarthrosis than revision anterior fusion. The higher fusion rate and lower incidence of repeat revision surgery offset the increased blood loss and longer recovery time associated with posterior cervical fusions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16517386     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  14 in total

1.  Does smoking influence fusion rates in posterior cervical arthrodesis with lateral mass instrumentation?

Authors:  Jason David Eubanks; Steven W Thorpe; Vinay K Cheruvu; Brett A Braly; James D Kang
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction: review article.

Authors:  John D Koerner; Christopher K Kepler; Todd J Albert
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-07-25

3.  Anterior vs Posterior Approach in Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Analysis of Complications, Outcomes, and Narcotic Use.

Authors:  Ravi S Nunna; Syed Khalid; Ryan G Chiu; Rown Parola; Richard G Fessler; Owoicho Adogwa; Ankit I Mehta
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02

4.  In vitro study of accuracy of cervical pedicle screw insertion using an electronic conductivity device (ATPS part III).

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Wolfgang Hitzl; Frank Acosta; Mark Tauber; Juliane Zenner; Herbert Resch; Yasutsugu Yukawa; Oliver Meier; Rene Schmidt; Michael Mayer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-07-03       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  4- and 5-level anterior fusions of the cervical spine: review of literature and clinical results.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Axel Hempfing; Luis Ferraris; Oliver Maier; Wolfgang Hitzl; Peter Metz-Stavenhagen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-06-29       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Length of stay associated with posterior cervical fusion with intervertebral cages: experience from a device registry.

Authors:  Kris Siemionow; William Smith; Mark Gillespy; Bruce M McCormack; Mukund I Gundanna; Jon E Block
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

7.  Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Incidence and clinical outcomes of patients requiring anterior versus posterior repeat cervical fusion.

Authors:  Mohamad Bydon; Risheng Xu; Rafael De la Garza-Ramos; Mohamed Macki; Daniel M Sciubba; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Timothy F Witham; Ziya L Gokaslan; Ali Bydon
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2014-04-16

Review 8.  A Meta-Analysis of the Clinical and Fusion Results following Treatment of Symptomatic Cervical Pseudarthrosis.

Authors:  Steven J McAnany; Evan O Baird; Samuel C Overley; Jun S Kim; Sheeraz A Qureshi; Paul A Anderson
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-01-30

Review 9.  Pseudarthrosis of the Cervical Spine: Risk Factors, Diagnosis and Management.

Authors:  Dante Leven; Samuel K Cho
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2016-08-16

10.  Alcoholism as a predictor for pseudarthrosis in primary spine fusion: An analysis of risk factors and 30-day outcomes for 52,402 patients from 2005 to 2013.

Authors:  Peter G Passias; Cole Bortz; Haddy Alas; Frank A Segreto; Samantha R Horn; Yael U Ihejirika; Dennis Vasquez-Montes; Katherine E Pierce; Avery E Brown; Kartik Shenoy; Edward M DelSole; Bradley Johnson; Cheongeun Oh; Peter L Zhou; Chloe Deflorimonte; Ekhamjeet S Dhillon; Pawel P Jankowski; Bassel G Diebo; Virginie Lafage; Renaud Lafage; Shaleen N Vira; John A Bendo; Jeffrey A Goldstein; Frank J Schwab; Michael C Gerling
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-12-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.