Literature DB >> 17304133

Ventral versus dorsal decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgeons' assessment of eligibility for randomization in a proposed randomized controlled trial: results of a survey of the Cervical Spine Research Society.

Zoher Ghogawala1, Jean-Valery Coumans, Edward C Benzel, Lauren M Stabile, Fred G Barker.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Surgeons attending a Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) meeting were surveyed about the surgical approach to cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).
OBJECTIVE: To elicit spine surgeons' opinions on the suitability of a panel of test cases for randomization in a proposed randomized controlled trial (RCT) of ventral versus dorsal decompression for CSM. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal surgical decompression strategy for CSM has not been defined. Specific eligibility criteria should be defined before a RCT is initiated.
METHODS: Twenty actual cases with images were prepared. Surgeons supplied demographic information, preferred surgical approach, and eligibility for randomization for 10 cases.
RESULTS: A total of 91 of 239 (38%) surgeons completed the survey. Of 900 case-strategy responses, 51% recommended ventral surgery, 38% dorsal surgery, and 11% a combined approach. Both overall C2-C7 kyphosis >5 degrees and a segmental kyphotic deformity were inversely correlated with eligibility for randomization (P < 0.001 for both). Using these 2 criteria plus age over 85 years, ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, and congenital canal stenosis as additional exclusion criteria, 12 of 20 survey cases were considered potentially eligible for randomization. Orthopedic and neurologic surgeons were similar in determining a case's eligibility for randomization.
CONCLUSIONS: These results measure surgeons' opinions on the suitability of cases for randomization and help to define entry and exclusion criteria for a RCT comparing ventral to dorsal strategies. Over 50% of CSM cases from a general spinal practice might be eligible for randomization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17304133     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000255068.94058.8a

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  23 in total

Review 1.  Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bin Zhu; Yilan Xu; Xiaoguang Liu; Zhongjun Liu; Gengting Dang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Commentary : The value of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring: evidence, equipoise and outcomes.

Authors:  R N Holdefer; S A Skinner
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-08-01       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  A technical case report on use of tubular retractors for anterior cervical spine surgery.

Authors:  Arvind G Kulkarni; Ankit Patel; N V Ankith
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Effect of Ventral vs Dorsal Spinal Surgery on Patient-Reported Physical Functioning in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; Norma Terrin; Melissa R Dunbar; Janis L Breeze; Karen M Freund; Adam S Kanter; Praveen V Mummaneni; Erica F Bisson; Fred G Barker; J Sanford Schwartz; James S Harrop; Subu N Magge; Robert F Heary; Michael G Fehlings; Todd J Albert; Paul M Arnold; K Daniel Riew; Michael P Steinmetz; Marjorie C Wang; Robert G Whitmore; John G Heller; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and corpectomy in patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Qiushui Lin; Xuhui Zhou; Xinwei Wang; Peng Cao; Nicholas Tsai; Wen Yuan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Increased in-hospital complications after primary posterior versus primary anterior cervical fusion.

Authors:  Stavros G Memtsoudis; Alexander Hughes; Yan Ma; Ya Lin Chiu; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Comparison of a zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) and the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with an anterior plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  Yijie Liu; Heng Wang; Xuefeng Li; Jie Chen; Han Sun; Genlin Wang; Huilin Yang; Weimin Jiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Full-endoscopic technique for anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion: 5-year follow-up results of 67 cases.

Authors:  Nuzhao Yao; Cheng Wang; Wenjun Wang; Lushan Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-12-11       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Cervical spondylotic myelopathy surgical trial: randomized, controlled trial design and rationale.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; Edward C Benzel; Robert F Heary; K Daniel Riew; Todd J Albert; William E Butler; Fred G Barker; John G Heller; Paul C McCormick; Robert G Whitmore; Karen M Freund; J Sanford Schwartz
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.654

10.  Defining Glioblastoma Resectability Through the Wisdom of the Crowd: A Proof-of-Principle Study.

Authors:  Adam M Sonabend; Brad E Zacharia; Michael B Cloney; Aarón Sonabend; Christopher Showers; Victoria Ebiana; Matthew Nazarian; Kristin R Swanson; Anne Baldock; Henry Brem; Jeffrey N Bruce; William Butler; Daniel P Cahill; Bob Carter; Daniel A Orringer; David W Roberts; Oren Sagher; Nader Sanai; Theodore H Schwartz; Daniel L Silbergeld; Michael B Sisti; Reid C Thompson; Allen E Waziri; Zoher Ghogawala; Guy McKhann
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 4.654

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.