STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study of 2 approaches to multilevel fusion for cervical spondylosis in consecutive patients at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: To provide justification for a concomitant posterior approach in multilevel cervical fusion for spondylosis by demonstrating decreased pseudarthrosis and reoperation rates. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Among the factors that affect cervical rates is the number of levels, such that increasing the number of levels leads to lower fusion rates. Because of this, modifications have been sought to improve union in multilevel procedures. One option is an antero-posterior (AP) approach or circumferential arthrodesis. METHODS: Seventy-eight consecutive patients who underwent multilevel cervical fusion at a single institution and with minimum 2-year follow-up data were divided into an anterior-only group (anterior: n=55), and an AP group (AP: n=23). Union was assessed by surgical exploration, computerized tomography scan, and flexion-extension radiographs. The groups were compared in terms of pseudarthrosis rates and reoperation rates. RESULTS: Using chi(2) analysis, there was a significant difference in pseudarthrosis rates (anterior 38% vs. AP 0%; P<0.001), and reoperation rate for pseudarthrosis (anterior 22% vs. AP 0%; P=0.01). There were no differences in overall (anterior 36% vs. AP 30%; P=0.62) and early (anterior 15% vs. AP 26%; P=0.13) reoperation rates, but late reoperations were increased in the anterior group (24% vs. AP 4%; P=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: A concomitant posterior fusion significantly reduced the incidence of pseudarthrosis (0% vs. 38%) and pseudarthrosis-related reoperations (0% vs. 22%) compared with traditional anterior-only fusion. However, this did not translate to a difference in overall reoperation rates. The majority of reoperations in the AP group (86%) were performed within 6 months, whereas those in the anterior-only group (65%) were performed later, which was generally when a pseudarthrosis became evident.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study of 2 approaches to multilevel fusion for cervical spondylosis in consecutive patients at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: To provide justification for a concomitant posterior approach in multilevel cervical fusion for spondylosis by demonstrating decreased pseudarthrosis and reoperation rates. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Among the factors that affect cervical rates is the number of levels, such that increasing the number of levels leads to lower fusion rates. Because of this, modifications have been sought to improve union in multilevel procedures. One option is an antero-posterior (AP) approach or circumferential arthrodesis. METHODS: Seventy-eight consecutive patients who underwent multilevel cervical fusion at a single institution and with minimum 2-year follow-up data were divided into an anterior-only group (anterior: n=55), and an AP group (AP: n=23). Union was assessed by surgical exploration, computerized tomography scan, and flexion-extension radiographs. The groups were compared in terms of pseudarthrosis rates and reoperation rates. RESULTS: Using chi(2) analysis, there was a significant difference in pseudarthrosis rates (anterior 38% vs. AP 0%; P<0.001), and reoperation rate for pseudarthrosis (anterior 22% vs. AP 0%; P=0.01). There were no differences in overall (anterior 36% vs. AP 30%; P=0.62) and early (anterior 15% vs. AP 26%; P=0.13) reoperation rates, but late reoperations were increased in the anterior group (24% vs. AP 4%; P=0.043). CONCLUSIONS: A concomitant posterior fusion significantly reduced the incidence of pseudarthrosis (0% vs. 38%) and pseudarthrosis-related reoperations (0% vs. 22%) compared with traditional anterior-only fusion. However, this did not translate to a difference in overall reoperation rates. The majority of reoperations in the AP group (86%) were performed within 6 months, whereas those in the anterior-only group (65%) were performed later, which was generally when a pseudarthrosis became evident.
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
Authors: Heiko Koller; Rene Schmidt; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl; Juliane Zenner; Stefan Midderhoff; Stefan Middendorf; Nicolaus Graf; Nicolaus Gräf; H Resch; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Hans-Joachim Willke Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Heiko Koller; Werner Schmoelz; Juliane Zenner; Alexander Auffarth; Herbert Resch; Wolfgang Hitzl; Davud Malekzadeh; Lukas Ernstbrunner; Martina Blocher; Michael Mayer Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 3.134